HUMBERTO BECKFORD, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to review a trial court's order staying their Florida state class action pending resolution of a previously filed federal class action involving substantially the same parties and issues. The court affirmed the stay, holding that state actions subsequently filed against substantially the same parties on substantially the same issues should be stayed pending disposition of the previously filed federal action, even when the state action asserts claims under Florida law not raised federally.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to lift the stay. When a previously filed federal action is pending between substantially the same parties on substantially the same issues, a subsequently filed state action should be stayed pending the disposition of the federal action, even if the state action asserts claims under state law that were not raised federally.
[1] A subsequently filed state court action should be stayed pending the disposition of a previously filed federal court action when the actions involve substantially the sam…
[2] A state court may deny a motion to lift a stay of a state class action when a substantially similar federal class action is pending, even if the state action asserts clai…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“when a previously filed federal action is pending between substantially the same parties on substantially the same issues, a subsequently filed state action should be stayed pending the disposition of the federal action”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that the court applied to deny the writ
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners filed a Florida state class action on behalf of a Florida class against General Motors Corporation and others. A federal class action invo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Deceptive And Unfair Trade Practices Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to review the trial court’s denial of their motion to lift an order staying this state court class action pending the disposition of a previously filed federal court class action involving substantially the same parties and issues. The federal class action was brought on behalf of a nationwide class while the instant action was brought on behalf of a Florida class. Petitioners contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion to lift the stay where the instant state action contains Florida law claims for alleged violations of (1) Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), sections 501.201-501.213, Florida Statutes (2002), and (2) Florida’s Motor Vehicle Licensing Act (“FMVLA”), sections 320.60-320.641, Florida Statutes (2002), which were not raised in the federal action.
We disagree and deny the writ.
It is well-settled that when a previously filed federal action is pending between substantially the same parties on substantially the same issues, a subsequently filed state action should be stayed pending the disposition of the federal action. Wade v. Clower, 94 Fla. 817, 114 So. 548 (1927); Oviedo v. Ventura Music Group, 797 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); see also Polaris Public Income Funds v. Einhorn, 625 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
In the instant case, the record reflects that the parties and subject matter at issue are substantially the same in both the federal and state action, and that the state action is essentially subsumed within the federal action. See, e.g., Einhorn, 625 So. 2d 128 (holding that a state action brought by a subset of the putative class in New York was sufficiently similar in parties and issues to warrant a stay of a Florida state action pending disposition of the New York action, notwithstanding the fact that the Florida action asserted claims under Florida law while the New York action asserted claims under common law and federal law).
It is apparent that Petitioners could have asserted their Florida claims in the federal class action but chose instead to file their claims in a Florida state court. Petitioners’ unilateral decision should not modify the long-standing principle that a subsequently filed state action should be stayed pending resolution of the federal action. See Wade, 94 Fla. 817, 114 So. 548; Oviedo, 797 So. 2d 634.
We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion to lift the stay order and, accordingly, deny the writ of certiorari.
Certiorari denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pilevsky v. Morgans Hotel Grp. Mgmt., LLC, 961 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…sert its claims as a counterclaim in the New York litigation “should not modify the long-standing principle that subsequently filed” actions should be stayed in favor of a first-filed action in another jurisdiction. Beckford v. General Motors Corp., 919 So. 2d 612, 613-14 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). The trial court’s concern that Morgans may be unable to obtain personal jurisdiction over two Florida residents in a potential New York counterclaim is not the standard for according deference to a first-filed action. Be…
-
Inphynet Contracting Servs., Inc. v. R.V. Matthews III, 196 So. 3d 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…, 1363 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Likewise, the Third District has stated that when there is a previously-filed class action case which involves substantially similar parties and issues, the subsequently-filed action should be stayed. See Beckford v. GMC, 919 So. 2d 612, 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); J.M. Smucker Co. v. Rudge, 877 So. 2d 820, 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Einhorn, 625 So. 2d at 129-30. The record in this case does not reveal a valid reason to depart from the principle of priority. Because, as discussed above,…
-
Opko Health, Inc. v. Lipsius, 279 So. 3d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…ttaches in a pending federal or state action “between substantially the same parties on substantially the same issues, a subsequently filed state action should be stayed pending the disposition of the federal action.” Beckford v. Gen. Motors Corp., 919 So. 2d 612, 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); see Pilevsky, 961 So. 2d at 1035. “Florida law is clear that, ‘the causes of action do not have to be identical’ to require a stay of the second-filed action.” Pilevsky, 961 So. 2d at 1035 (quoting Fla. Crushed Stone Co.,…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Neill G. Wade v. Clower, 94 Fla. 817 (Fla. 1927)
- State v. Thompson, 625 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Corinne Oviedo v. Ventura Music Grp., 797 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)