OZA B. JENKINS, APPELLANT,
v.
MOTOROLA, INC. AND CINGULAR WIRELESS LLC, APPELLEES
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.
Oza B. Jenkins appeals the trial court's denial of her motion for entry of final judgment against Motorola and Cingular Wireless after her case was dismissed with prejudice in 2006. The appellate court affirms, finding Jenkins' repeated motions constitute vexatious litigation and rejecting her attempt to obtain a default judgment in a case that is no longer pending.
The trial court properly denied Jenkins' motion for entry of final judgment because the case ended in 2006 when it was dismissed with prejudice, no default was ever entered, and Jenkins' repetitive motions constitute vexatious litigation.
[1] A trial court may deny a motion for entry of final judgment when no default has been entered in the action.
[2] A case that has been dismissed with prejudice and affirmed on appeal is no longer pending before the trial court.
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“The trial court's order presently under appeal once again informs Jenkins that her case ended in 2006, and her motion for a default final judgment is denied.”
Establishes that the trial court had repeatedly informed Jenkins that her case terminated in 2006 and that her ongoing motions were improper.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJenkins filed a complaint against Motorola and Cingular in January 2004. The case was removed to federal court and remanded to state court. In Novembe…
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 Vexatious Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
SUAREZ, J.
The plaintiff, Oza B. Jenkins (“Jenkins”), appeals the trial court’s final order denying the plaintiffs motion for entry of final judgment against defendants, Motorola, Inc. (“Motorola”) and Cingular Wireless LLC (“Cingular”). We affirm the trial court’s order in all respects.
Jenkins filed her complaint against Motorola and Cingular in January 2004. The case was removed to federal court and then remanded. Since that time, three circuit court judges have handled this matter. Two were subjects of motions to disqualify filed by Jenkins after entering orders denying her motions. On November 2, 2006, the trial court entered a final order dismissing her claims with prejudice. That order was affirmed by this Court, and Jenkins’ petition for discretionary review was denied by the Florida Supreme Court. Unfortunately, this case did not end at that time. Since then, Jenkins has filed numerous motions with the trial court requesting a final default judgment. Each motion has been denied because a default was never entered in this action. The trial court has continually reminded Jenkins that there is no action pending as her case was dismissed. In all, this case has been the subject of at least five appeals to this Court, two petitions for writ of certiorari, and two petitions for discretionary review to the Florida Supreme Court. The trial court’s order presently under appeal once again informs Jenkins that her case ended in 2006, and her motion for a default final judgment is denied.
This Court is in full agreement and affirms in every way the order entered by the trial court on June 24, 2008. Additionally, we agree with the trial court’s finding that these repetitive motions amount to vexatious litigation, and we reaffirm the trial court’s directive that Jenkins file no further motions in this action without the prior approval of the trial court.1
Affirmed.
. This is not the first time in which a trial court has found that Jenkins’ repetitive motions amounted to vexatious litigation and has directed her to refrain from filing further motions without the approval of the trial court. See Jenkins v. Lennar Corp., 972 So. 2d 1064, 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 988 So. 2d 622 (Fla.2008).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Oza B. Jenkins v. Motorola, Inc., 82 So. 3d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…rola, Inc. is invited to respond within ten days thereafter. . The following is a partial list of the merit-less filings by Jenkins in this Court: Jenkins v. Motorola, Inc., 23 So. 3d 726 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (affirming); Jenkins v. Motorola, Inc., 994 So. 2d 1253, 1254 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (affirming trial court’s order in “all respects” and reaffirming “the trial court's directive that Jenkins file no further motions in this action without the prior approval of the trial court”); Jenkins v. Motorola, Inc., 98…
Authorities Cited
- Oza B. Jenkins v. Lennar Corp. & Duane Morris & Heckscher, 972 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- State v. Rogers, 988 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 2008)