SAMANTHA GODFREY, PETITIONER,
v.
RELIANCE WHOLESALE, INC., 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.
Samantha Godfrey petitioned for a writ of prohibition challenging the circuit court's denial of her motion to dismiss based on lack of standing by Reliance Wholesale, Inc. The Florida appellate court denied the petition, holding that lack of standing does not deprive a circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction and therefore does not warrant the extraordinary remedy of prohibition.
The court held that lack of standing is insufficient to deprive a circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction and therefore does not warrant a writ of prohibition. A motion to dismiss for lack of standing is not reviewable by writ of prohibition.
[1] A writ of prohibition is unavailable unless the petitioner demonstrates that there are no disputed facts and the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
[2] Subject matter jurisdiction refers to a court's lawful power to hear and determine a cause, conferred by constitution or statute.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Prohibition may only be granted when it is shown that a lower court is without jurisdiction or attempting to act in excess of jurisdiction.”
Establishes the fundamental requirement for granting a writ of prohibition—the lower court must lack jurisdiction entirely.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReliance Wholesale, Inc. filed a complaint against Samantha Godfrey seeking temporary and permanent injunctive relief and damages in excess of $15,000…
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 General Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a petition for a writ of prohibition based on the circuit court’s denial of Samantha Godfrey’s motion to dismiss due to lack of standing by Reliance Wholesale, Inc.1 We deny the petition because a lack of standing is insufficient to deprive a circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction so as to invoke the extraordinary writ of prohibition.
We agree with the petitioner that we may grant a writ of prohibition where there are no disputed issues of fact and the circuit court is poised to proceed without subject matter jurisdiction. DHL Express (USA), Inc. v. State, ex rel. Grupp, 60 So.3d 426, 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Am. Mar. Officers Union v. Merriken, 981 *932So.2d 544, 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Unless the petitioner can show, however, that (1) there are no disputed facts and (2) the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, a writ of prohibition is unavailable. In Roberts v. Brown, 43 So.3d 673, 677-78 (Fla.2010), the Florida Supreme Court quoted the following passage:
Prohibition may only be granted when it is shown that a lower court is without jurisdiction or attempting to act in excess of jurisdiction. It is preventive and not corrective in that it commands the one to whom it is directed not to do the thing which the supervisory court is informed the lower tribunal is about to do. Its purpose is to prevent the doing of something, not to compel the undoing of. something already done.
(citing English v. McCrary, 348 So.2d 293, 296-97 (Fla.1977)).
There is much confusion as to what constitutes “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction.” When dealing with subject matter jurisdiction, we look at the nature of the case and the type of relief sought. The Florida Supreme Court stated in Paulucci v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 842 So.2d 797, 801 n. 3 (Fla.2003): “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction ‘means no more than the power lawfully existing to hear and determine a cause.’ Cunningham v. Standard Guar. Ins. Co., 630 So.2d 179, 181 (Fla.1994) (quoting Malone v. Meres, 91 Fla. 709, 109 So. 677, 683 (Fla.1926)).” “Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred upon a court by a constitution or statute, and cannot be created by waiver, acquiescence or agreement of the parties.” Snider v. Snider, 686 So.2d 802, 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). “The term [subject matter jurisdiction] is inapplicable to the court’s jurisdiction over a specific case because of a contention that a party has not complied with a legal requirement not involving the general power of the court over the case.” McGhee v. Biggs, 974 So.2d 524, 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
The Third Amended Complaint which the petitioner sought to dismiss seeks Temporary and Permanent Injunc-tive Relief and Damages in excess of $15,000. The circuit court is a court of general jurisdiction and has subject matter jurisdiction over these types of cases. See Art. V, § 20(c)(3), Fla. Const. §§ 26.012(2)(a), 34.01(l)(c) Fla. Stat. (2010).
The petitioner relies on language contained in Askew v. Hold The Bulkhead-Save Our Bays, Inc., 269 So.2d 696, 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) (“Standing has been equated with jurisdiction of the subject matter of litigation....”). We do not agree that a circuit court that otherwise had jurisdiction over the subject matter, i.e., “the general power of the court over the case,” would lose such jurisdiction because the plaintiff may lack standing. McGhee, 974 So.2d at 525-26.
We thus hold that the denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of standing is not reviewable by writ of prohibition.
Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Corrigan v. Bank OF Am., N.A., 189 So. 3d 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…ably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly”). Ordinarily, Florida courts do not construe a plaintiff's lack of standing as if it were a jurisdictional defect. See Godfrey v. Reliance Wholesale, Inc., 68 So. 3d 930, 931 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (denying defendant’s petition for writ of prohibition “[bjecause a lack of standing is insufficient to deprive a circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction”). It is an affirmative defense, Dage v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust C…
-
Delgado v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 237 So. 3d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…that jurisdiction of the subject matter (thus standing to bring suit) cannot be conferred by consent' " (quoting Askew v. Hold the Bulkhead-Save Our Bays, Inc. , 269 So. 2d 696, 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) ) ) ); cf. Godfrey v. Reliance Wholesale, Inc. , 68 So. 3d 930, 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (acknowledging that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the agreement of the parties, but disagreeing with the premise in Askew "that a circuit court that otherwise had jurisdiction over the subject matter, i.e…
-
Briarwood Cap. v. Lennar Corp., 125 So. 3d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…(citing Lovett v. Lovett, 93 Fla. 611, 112 So. 768 (1927) (advising subject matter jurisdiction concerns a court’s power to deal with a class of cases to which a particular case belongs, not an individual case)); Godfrey v. Reliance Wholesale, Inc., 68 So. 3d 930, 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“Subject matter jurisdiction ‘means no more than the power lawfully existing to hear and determine a cause.’ ”) (quoting Malone v. Meres, 91 Fla. 709, 725, 109 So. 677, 683 (1926)) — the Marsch defendants filed a petition fo…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Carey English v. McCRARY, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977)
- Malone v. Meres, 109 So. 677 (Fla. 1926)
- Cunningham v. Standard Guar. Ins. Co., 630 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1994)
- Jeno F. Paulucci v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 842 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2003)
- Roberts v. Corrine Brown, 43 So. 3d 673 (Fla. 2010)
- Snider v. Cornelia N. Snider, 686 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Reubin O'D. Askew v. Hold THE Bulkhead-Save OUR Bays, Inc., 269 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Reliance Wholesale, Inc. v. Godfrey, 51 So. 3d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- McGHEE v. Biggs, 974 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Am. Mar. Officers Union v. Merriken, 981 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)