MARILYN SILVIA RABELLO, PETITIONER,
v.
LIANA ALONSO, RESPONDENT
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.
The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting a motion for relief from a stipulated dismissal with prejudice after the court had lost jurisdiction.
The parties entered into a stipulation and order of dismissal with prejudice. Over a year later, the plaintiff filed a motion for relief from this dis…
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 Loss Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
SUAREZ, J.
By petition for common law writ of certiorari, we have jurisdiction to review the trial court’s Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Relief from Stipulation and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice. We grant the petition for certiorari and quash the order reinstating this action.
A stipulation and order of dismissal with prejudice was entered by the parties on May 23, 2003, with an order of dismissal signed by the trial judge on June 3, 2003. On February 3, 2005, plaintiff filed Plaintiffs Motion for Relief from Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. On March 22, 2005, the trial judge entered the order under review setting aside the dismissal and re-instating the action.
We agree with the petitioner that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in entering this order. If the motion was a simple request for reinstatement, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in reinstating the action, as once a stipulated voluntary dismissal is taken, the court loses jurisdiction. See Randle-Eastern Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. Vasta, 360 So. 2d 68 (Fla.1978). Should the motion have been considered, which it apparently was, as a request to set aside the stipulated dismissal based on fraud or a mistake pursuant to Rule 1.540, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the time limitation for bringing such motion had run.
Therefore, the trial court’s order was issued in excess of its jurisdiction and is a departure from the essential requirements of law requiring that the certiorari petition on review be granted and the trial court’s order be quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pino v. The Bank OF NEW York, 121 So. 3d 23 (Fla. 2013)…ly taken with prejudice. See, e.g., Miller, 484 So. 2d at 1223-24; Diaz, Reus & Targ, LLP v. Bird Wingate, LLC II, 66 So. 3d 974, 974-75 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Haecherl, 56 So. 3d 892, 894 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Rabello v. Alonso, 927 So. 2d 45, 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); DiPiazza v. Palm Beach Mall, Inc., 722 So. 2d 831, 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Davidson v. Lenglen Condo Assoc., 602 So. 2d 687, 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Freeman v. Sanders, 562 So. 2d 834, 834-35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). This makes…
-
Grommers v. Fabiana Correa PLA (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…dismissal operates, with the exception of certain limitations not applicable here, to terminate the trial court’s jurisdiction over the matter. See id.; Semerena v. Aetna Health, Inc., 248 So. 3d 230, 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Rabello v. Alonso, 927 So. 2d 45, 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); see also Monteagudo v. Cimbler, 306 So. 3d 337, 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). Even 1 Guardianship proceedings remain ongoing below as to other parties. Respondent takes no position on the issue herein. ---PAGE 3--- where a pla…
Authorities Cited
- Randle-Eastern Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. Vasta, 360 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1978)