EDWIN W. PECK, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
2625 PLAZA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, INC., A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 condominium developer's petition for certiorari challenging the authority of an attorney to represent a class action brought by a condominium association is denied because class action rules permit representation of the whole by one or more members, and the proper vehicle for challenging class certification is a motion to dismiss, not a writ of certiorari at this stage.
An attorney may represent a class action on behalf of all unit owners even when only a minority have actively supported the suit, as class action rules permit prosecution or defense by one or more for the whole.
[1] Class action rules permit one or more class members to prosecute or defend an action on behalf of the entire class, and the authority of class counsel is determined by th…
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 intelligenceA condominium developer in Volusia County is defendant in a class action suit brought by a condominium association and its board of directors on behal…
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 Suit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition for common law writ of certiorari from an order denying petitioner’s “Motion to Determine Authority of Attorney to Represent Alleged Class.”
Petitioner is the developer of a condominium project in Volusia County. He is defendant in a class action suit brought by the condominium association and its board of directors, both individually and as representatives of the remaining unit owners. Petitioner argues that there is no attorney-client relationship where only 20 out of 100 unit owners have actively supported this suit.
This, however, is the very purpose of class action litigation — the prosecution or defense by one or more for the whole. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.220. The real question of the authority of the class attorney is answered by considering the prerequisites which a complaint in a class action must contain in order to withstand a motion to dismiss. Harrell v. Hess Oil and Chemical Corp., 287 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1973); Frankel v. City of Miami Beach, 340 So. 2d 463 (Fla.1976). The denial of petitioner’s motion to dismiss, is not and should not be before this court at this stage of the proceeding. Dairyland Insurance Company v. McKenzie, 251 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971).
The petition for writ of certiorari is DENIED.
BOYER, C. J., and MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elbert C. Robinson and Verna Cotten Robinson v. Bailey, 370 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…. Robinson and Jennie Stewart Robinson, his wife, and Rosalie Robinson Gordon-Mills shall go hence without day.” (e. s.) The foregoing was a final judgment as to the Robinsons. That judgment was affirmed on appeal by this Court. Bailey v. Robinson, 344 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). A year after final judgment, the Linzys moved, pursuant to Rule 1.540, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the final judgment to include the Linzy’s claim for indemnity and damages against the Robinsons. The moti…
Authorities Cited
- Frankel v. City OF Miami Beach, 340 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1976)
- Harrell v. Hess OIL & Chem. Corp., 287 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1973)
- Dairyland Ins. Co. v. McKENZIE, 251 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)