WILLIS JACKSON, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLANT,
v.
ALTERMAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLEE
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.
Willis Jackson appealed a summary judgment dismissing his suit against Alterman Transport Lines for allegedly deducting workmen's compensation insurance from his salary without authorization. The court reversed the summary judgment, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Jackson was an employee or independent contractor, and remanded for trial.
The court affirmed the dismissal of the original class action complaint because Jackson had removed himself from the class and thus lacked standing to represent it. However, the court reversed the summary judgment on the amended individual complaint, finding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Jackson was an independent contractor or employee, precluding summary judgment.
[1] An order dismissing a complaint is interlocutory and reviewable on appeal from a subsequent final judgment adjudicating the entire cause.
[2] A plaintiff who voluntarily removes himself from the class he wishes to represent cannot maintain a class action.
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“Summary Judgment is to be granted when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Establishes the legal standard for summary judgment that the trial court failed to properly apply
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson filed a class action complaint on behalf of employees from whose salaries monies were deducted for workmen's compensation insurance. The origi…
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 Class Action Standing cases and more on FLexlaw
[*796] NATHAN, Judge.
Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, appeals an order of the circuit court granting a summary judgment in favor of the defendant-appellee on his amended complaint. He also seeks review of a prior order dismissing the original complaint.
Appellant’s original complaint was in the form of a class action brought on behalf of all “employees” from whose salaries monies were deducted for workmen’s compensation insurance.
In February of 1973, the court dismissed this complaint for failure to make a claim upon which relief may be granted on a class action basis because plaintiff-appellant had voluntarily removed himself from the class he wished to represent by terminating his relationship with appellee. Appellant took no interlocutory appeal from that order. He filed an amended complaint, sans class action, and is now appealing the subsequent order of final summary judgment in favor of the defendant-appellant on the amended complaint.
Appellee contends that review of the order of dismissal of February, 1973, as to the class action, is untimely and, therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to entertain this issue. We do not agree. This order, granting a motion to dismiss the complaint, is interlocutory. Although final in form, such an order is now reviewable on appeal from the subsequent judgment finally adjudicating the entire cause or complaint. Goldfarb v. Bronston, 1944, 154 Fla. 180, 17 So. 2d 300; Raphael v. Carner, Fla.App.1967, 194 So. 2d 298.
It is our view that the complaint did not allege facts sufficient to establish the plaintiff-appellant’s right to maintain this action as a class suit because he removed himself from the class; therefore, the motion to dismiss was properly granted. Syna v. Shell Oil Co., Fla.App.1970, 241 So. 2d 458. See also Harrell v. Hess Oil & Chemical Corporation, Fla. 1973, 287 So. 2d 291; Port Royal, Inc., v. Conboy, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 734; Hendler v. Rodgers House Condominium, Inc., Fla.App.1970, 234 So. 2d 128; Watnick v. Florida Commercial Banks, Inc., Fla.App.1973, 275 So. 2d 278; Federated Department Stores, Inc., v. Pasco, Fla.App.1973, 275 So. 2d 46.
We now consider the other point raised on appeal; the propriety of the summary judgment entered by the trial court. Summary Judgment is to be granted when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Weinstein v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Company Limited, Fla.App.1963, 141 So. 2d 318. The trial court made a . finding of fact in the final summary judgment that the status of plaintiff-appellant was that of an independent contractor rather than an employee, and, therefore, deducting monies from his salary for workmen’s compensation insurance would not have been a violation of Ch. 440, Florida Statutes, which was the basis for his cause of action. We find from careful review of the record that a genuine issue of material fact does exist, to-wit, whether he was an independent contractor or an employee.
Therefore, the final summary judgment appealed from is reversed. While not passing on the merits of the other counts of the amended complaint pertaining to punitive damages, fraud and accounting of funds, it necessarily follows that these remaining issues shall be considered in the trial of this cause.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded to the trial court for. further proceedings consistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frankel v. City OF Miami Beach, 340 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1976)…94 So. 2d 337 (Fla.App.3d 1974) (citing Osceola Groves; Wilson; Pasco and Watnick); Randall v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp., Ltd., 296 So. 2d 61 (Fla. App.3d 1974) (citing Osceola Groves); Jackson v. Alterman Transport Lines, Inc., 301 So. 2d 795 (Fla.App.3d 1974) (citing Watnick which relied upon Osceola Groves and Wilson and Pasco which relied upon Osceola Groves, Wilson and Daniels). In none of the above foregoing “class action” decisions of the Third District was fraud alleged. Accordin…
-
O'Brien v. Brickell Townhouse, Inc., 439 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…s claim against the appellees and lost. Therefore, he is no longer within any putative class which may have claims against the appel-lees. Stabinski v. Pirelli Tire Corp., 371 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Jackson v. Alterman Transport Lines, Inc., 301 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Affirmed. . Appellant’s amended complaint dropped the class allegations entirely and proceeded in his name individually.…
Authorities Cited
- Port Royal, Inc. v. Conboy, 154 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Harrell v. Hess OIL & Chem. Corp., 287 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1973)
- Freddy J. Hendler v. The Rogers House Condo., 234 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Pasco, 275 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Weinstein v. Gen. Accident Fire & Life Assurance Co. Ltd., 141 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Watnick v. Fla. Commercial Banks, Inc., 275 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Raphael v. Carner, 194 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Goldfarb v. Bronston, 154 Fla. 180 (Fla. 1944)
- Syna v. Shell OIL Co., 241 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Junior Boggs v. State, 154 Fla. 180 (Fla. 1944)