ANSEL L. HARGRAVES ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
CECIL G. COSTIN, JR., ET AL., 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.
The court affirmed the trial court's summary final judgment dismissing the complaint and rejecting appellants' attempt to proceed as a class action, consistent with the court's prior decision that the suit did not qualify under Florida Civil Procedure Rule 1.220.
A suit that does not qualify as a class action under Florida Civil Procedure Rule 1.220 cannot be maintained as a class action, and the trial court properly enforced the appellate court's prior mandate by denying further amendment attempts.
[1] A trial court properly enforces an appellate mandate by refusing to permit amendment to a complaint after the appellate court has determined the suit does not qualify as…
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 intelligenceAppellants sought to maintain a suit as a class action under Florida Civil Procedure Rule 1.220. The appellate court previously determined the suit di…
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 Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We here for a second time1 consider a case which has been aptly and colorfully described by the parties in their briefs as a “can of worms”. The facts are sufficiently recited in our prior opinion wherein we said:
“The only issue for our determination is whether or not the instant suit qualifies as a class action under Florida Civil Procedure Rule 1.220, 30 F.S.A.”
“ * * * It is our conclusion that the appellants’ contentions are sound and that this suit shotild not and cannot be maintained as a class action.
“We therefore reverse the order of the trial court denying appellants’ motion for an order declaring that this suit cannot be maintained as a class action and remand this case with directions to enter a final judgment dismissing the complaint, but without prejudice to allowing further amendment to conform to this decision.” (Emphasis added; 283 So. 2d at pages 376 and 377)
Despite the clear and explicit holding in our prior decision appellants insisted in the trial court, and again here, that they should be permitted to amend their complaint and proceed in a class action. The trial court correctly held that we meant what we said in our prior opinion and. that they could not do so.
Appellants also urge that the trial court erred in entering a summary final judgment, but we find no merit to that contention.
We have also carefully considered the other points raised by appellants and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, the summary final judgment here appealed is affirmed.
BOYER, Acting C. J., and McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur. . Costin v. Hargraves, Fla.App.1st 1973, 283 So. 2d 375.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maner Props., Inc. v. Siksay, 489 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…he resulting judgment is res ju-dicata upon the rights of the entire class despite their lack of participation in, or perhaps even knowledge of, the proceedings. Costin v. Hargraves, 283 So. 2d 375, 376-377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973), appeal after remand, 325 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (emphasis deleted); see also State ex rel. Devlin v. Dickinson, 305 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). The claim asserted here does not meet the Costin test. The class representative entered into an agreement for deed, so her inter…
-
MacKin v. Applestein, 404 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Similarly, there was no error in the order declining to permit an amendment to the complaint after the thus-required judgments for Federal. At that point, the court had lost jurisdiction to grant such relief. Hargraves v. Costin, 325 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 206 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Marans v. Stang, 124 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). It is appropriate to add, however, that neither this opinion nor any other factor is an imp…
Authorities Cited
- Costin v. Ansel L. Hargraves, 283 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)