JARRED LEIBNER
v.
PERRY STUART SEIDER, ETC.
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.
A petitioner sought mandamus relief to compel the circuit court to exercise jurisdiction over his consumer protection and fraud claims. The circuit court had transferred the case to county court, but the appellate court held that the circuit court erred in refusing jurisdiction because the case involved equitable relief beyond declaratory judgment.
The circuit court erred in refusing to exercise jurisdiction because it has concurrent jurisdiction in matters of equity regardless of whether the amount in controversy exceeds the county court's jurisdictional threshold. The petition for mandamus is granted, and the circuit court must vacate the transfer order, exercise jurisdiction, and rule on the petitioner's pending motions.
[1] A circuit court's concurrent jurisdiction over equitable claims is not limited by the county court's jurisdictional threshold based on amount in controversy.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Circuit courts have concurrent jurisdiction in matters of equity regardless of whether the amount in controversy exceeds the county court's jurisdictional threshold.”
Court's statement of controlling law regarding circuit court equity jurisdiction
Petitioner filed a third amended complaint seeking declaratory relief, damages, and injunctive relief under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices …
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 County Court Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the circuit court to exercise jurisdiction over his action and rule on his pending motions. We conclude that the circuit court erred in refusing to exercise jurisdiction and grant the petition.
In his third amended complaint, petitioner sought declaratory relief, damages, and injunctive relief for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), as well as damages and equitable relief for other fraud-based claims. The circuit court transferred the case to county court, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over petitioner’s claim for declaratory relief because the amount in controversy does not exceed the county court’s jurisdictional threshold. See § 86.011, Fla. Stat. (2017); Federated Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Restoration 1 of S. Fla., LLC, 152 So. 3d 1292, 1292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).
The circuit court erred in refusing to exercise jurisdiction over the petitioner’s action because he is seeking equitable relief other than a declaratory judgment. Circuit courts have concurrent jurisdiction in matters of equity regardless of whether the amount in controversy exceeds the county court’s jurisdictional threshold. See § 26.012(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2017); Alexdex Corp. v. Nachon Enters., Inc., 641 So. 2d 858, 861-62 (Fla. 1994); see also Recanzone v. May Co., 712 So. 2d 474, 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that the circuit court had jurisdiction over an action for damages and injunctive relief under FCCPA and FDUTPA even though the amount in controversy did not exceed the county court’s jurisdictional threshold).
We therefore grant the petition. The circuit court shall vacate the order transferring the case to county court, exercise its jurisdiction over the case, and rule on the petitioner’s pending motions within a reasonable time.
Petition granted.
CIKLIN, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Alexdex Corp. v. Nachon Enters., Inc., 641 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1994)
- Recanzone v. The MAY Co., 712 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)