WILLIAM JOYCE
v.
JOSEPH SHINGARY A/K/A JOE SHINGARY
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 plaintiff's good faith pleading of related wage claims aggregating above the circuit court jurisdictional threshold is proper, and the plaintiff did not improperly structure pleadings to invoke jurisdiction.
[1] A circuit court may not award attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, when a plaintiff properly pleads damages above the jurisdictional amount, even if fu…
[2] Demands that are joint, composite, or arise from the same transaction or occurrence may be aggregated to confer jurisdiction.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“[I]f the demands from their nature or character are joint or composite, or are in some way related to each other or arise out of the same transaction, circumstances, or occurrence, they may be aggregated to confer jurisdiction.”
Citing State ex rel. City of West Palm Beach v. Chillingworth regarding aggregation of related claims for jurisdictional purposes.
The plaintiff, an independent contractor, sued for unpaid wages totaling over $18,500 (combining alleged unpaid past wages of $6,500 and unpaid future…
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 Jurisdictional Amount cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
WILLIAM JOYCE,
Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH SHINGARY a/k/a JOE SHINGARY, GRETCHEN GAEBEL and BANYAN DETOX, LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
Appellees.
No. 4D20-27
[December 16, 2020]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; William L. Roby, Judge; L.T. Case No. 18-CA-001140.
Robert M. Lewis of Law Office of Robert M. Lewis, LLC, Jupiter, for appellant.
Adam G. Heffner of Adam G. Heffner, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee Banyan Detox, LLC.
GERBER, J.
We reverse the circuit court’s orders granting the corporate defendant’s motion for entitlement to attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2019), and then awarding the corporate defendant the amount of those attorney’s fees.
The corporate defendant convinced the circuit court that the plaintiff had “improperly structur[ed] [his] pleadings as to the jurisdictional amount to invoke [the circuit court’s] jurisdiction.” However, the record indicates the plaintiff’s original complaint and amended complaints all properly pled above the then-circuit court $15,000 jurisdictional amount by alleging unpaid future wages of $12,000 and unpaid past wages of $6,500, both arising from the corporate defendant’s termination of the plaintiff’s employment under a single independent contractor agreement. See State ex rel. City of West Palm Beach v. Chillingworth, 129 So. 816, 817 (1930) (“[I]f the demands from their nature or character are joint or composite, or are in some way related to each other or arise out of the same transaction, circumstances, or occurrence, they may be aggregated
2
to confer jurisdiction.”); White v. Marine Transp. Lines, Inc., 372 So. 2d 81, 84 (Fla. 1979) (“[T]he good faith demand of the plaintiff at the time of instituting suit determines the ability of the particular court to entertain the action.”).
If the circuit court later determined it lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff’s claimed damages were less than the monetary threshold for circuit court jurisdiction, it could have transferred the action to the county court. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.060(a) (“If it should appear at any time that an action is pending in the wrong court of any county, it may be transferred to the proper court within said county ....”); Bejarano v. City of Hollywood, 279 So. 3d 183, 185 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (“Courts applying ... rule [1.060(a)] have held that the preferable approach is to transfer a case to county court following a determination that a circuit court lacks jurisdiction because a plaintiff’s claim is less than the monetary threshold for circuit court jurisdiction.”).
Because we reverse the circuit court’s orders based on the plaintiff’s first argument on appeal, the plaintiff’s second and third arguments on appeal are moot.
Reversed. KLINGENSMITH, J., and NUTT, JAMES, Associate Judge, concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Johnson v. Plantation Gen. Hosp. Ltd. P'ship, 641 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 1994)…ses that are as typically complex as class actions. We believe that allowing the aggregation of claims in order to retain jurisdiction is consistent with this Court’s decision in State ex rel. City of West Palm Beach v. Chillingworth, 100 Fla. 489, 129 So. 816 (1930). The claimants in Chillingworth owned bonds and brought an action in the circuit court seeking an installment of interest due on the bonds. The value of the aggregated claims was worth $600, but the minimum jurisdiction of the circuit courts…1 / 2
-
Mari Haueter-Herranz v. Agustin Miguel Torres Romero, 975 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNTS The Haueters, Stox, and Happy argue that the Investors cannot aggregate their claims to establish the jurisdictional threshold in the underlying cases. See State ex rel. City of West Palm Beach v. Chillingworth, 100 Fla. 489, 129 So. 816, 818 (1930) (concluding that separate and distinct claims that do not arise out of the same transaction, circumstances, or occurrences and that do not arise from a continuous course of dealing cannot be aggregated to confer jurisdiction); see also J…
-
Williams v. Keyes, 135 Fla. 769 (Fla. 1938)…order the election, is, I think upheld by the principles enunciated in the following cases: State, ex rel. Williams v. Coleman, 131 Fla. 892, 180 So. 357; State v. Duval County, 76 Fla. 180, 79 So. 692; Fla. Motor Lines v. R. R. Comm. 100 Fla. 538, 129 So. 816; McMullen v. Newman Corp’n, 100 Fla. 566, 129 So. 870; Towns v. State, 102 Fla. 188, 135 So. 822; Duval County v. Jennings, 121 Fla. 584. 164 So. 356. See also in this general connection 11 Am. Juris. 880-882: State v. Clark, 22 Pac. 2nd, 900; Rawl…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bejarano v. City of Hollywood, 279 So. 3d 183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)