CHRYSLER CORPORATION, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
DAN A. HAMES AND NANCYE K. HAMES, 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.
Chrysler Corporation sought review of a trial court's refusal to honor a voluntary dismissal by plaintiffs and its denial of Chrysler's motion to tax costs. The court held that under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, a trial court lacks discretion to refuse a plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of a defendant when made in writing or on the record, and therefore Chrysler was entitled to have the dismissal honored and to pursue a cost-shifting motion.
A trial court lacks discretion to deny a voluntary dismissal of a defendant when made by notice in writing or stated on the record under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.250(b). Once a defendant is properly dismissed, the case ends as to that party, and the defendant is entitled to pursue a motion to tax costs against the dismissing party.
[1] A plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a defendant by written notice or by stating the dismissal on the record, and the court has no discretion to deny such a dismissal.
[2] Once a defendant is properly dismissed by a plaintiff, the case is ended as to that defendant.
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“Under the procedure of the latter rule, the court has no discretion to deny the dropping of a defendant by a plaintiff if it is made by notice in writing or stated on the record.”
Establishes the mandatory nature of voluntary dismissal under the rules—courts cannot refuse them.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs came to trial without complying with a pre-trial order. Realizing they might not be able to present certain witnesses and evidence, plainti…
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 Taxing Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
Petitioner Chrysler Corporation by common law certiorari seeks review of an Order of the trial court entered after Petitioner was dropped as a Defendant by the Respondents who were Plaintiffs at trial. Briefly, Plaintiffs came to trial without complying with a pre-trial Order. When it became apparent to them they might not be able to present certain witnesses and documentary evidence, they announced' on the record a “voluntary dismissal” of Chrysler Corporation as a Defendant. We presume it was Plaintiffs’ intention to “drop” Chrysler Corporation as a party Defendant under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.250(b). There was further maneuvering in the court room and the trial court said, in effect, it would not honor the voluntary dismissal; it would sua sponte grant a continuance of the whole matter and the parties departed.
Thereafter the Petitioner moved to tax costs against the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs gave Notice of Taking of Deposition to the Petitioner, who moved to quash the Notice of Taking of Deposition. The court denied that Motion and the Motion to Tax Costs.
It is Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.250(b) which provides for dropping parties. Rule 1.250(b) states that parties may be dropped in the manner prescribed by Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(a)(1). Under the procedure of the latter rule, the court has no discretion to deny the dropping of a defendant by a plaintiff if it is made by notice in writing or stated on the record. At that point the case is ended as to the dropped party. If he is entitled to an order taxing costs against the party who dropped him, the time has ripened for him to file a motion therefor. The Notice of Taking of Deposition should have been quashed and the court should have granted any properly presented Motion to Tax Costs. We do not have a transcript of the hearing, if one is in existence, in regard to the Motion to Tax Costs and we are not called upon to review the sufficiency of the hearing.
Certiorari is granted and the Order of the court orally entered which purported to reinstate Plaintiffs’ cause of action is quashed as is the Order denying Petitioner’s Motion to Quash the Notice of Taking of Deposition. This cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to quash the Notice of Taking of Deposition and to grant a hearing on Petitioner’s Motion to tax the costs below.
REVERSED and REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. ALDERMAN, J., concurs.
MAGER, C. J., concurs in conclusion only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fed. Ins. Co. v. Fatolitis, 478 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…has previously been employed to review a trial court’s refusal to honor a voluntary dismissal. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Turner, 427 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Tinsely v. McDonald, 378 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Chrysler [*109] Corp. v. Hames, 345 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.250(b) provides that a party may be dropped from a lawsuit “in the manner” of a dismissal action per Rule 1.420(a)(1). Subject to the exception noted infra, this is done simply by notice. Fisch…
-
Bonita Kuhn v. Grover E. Harless & Travelers Ins. Co., 390 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…arty left Travelers’ attorneys with no position in the case except their representation of Harless individually under the insurance policy. See Randle-Eastern Ambulance Service, Inc. v. Vasta, 360 So. 2d 68 (Fla.1978); Chrysler Corporation v. Hames, 345 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Before Hoffman v. Jones, supra, negligence lawsuits were governed by the law of contributory negligence where, if the defendant could show the plaintiff contributed to the cause of the accident, the plaintiff was barred from an…
-
Nat'l Bank OF Commerce v. Jupiter Mortg. Corp. & Dupont Mortg. Grp., Inc., 890 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)….420(a)(1)(A)). The notice will be timely if filed before the hearing on a motion for summary judgment. Id. Once the notice is properly filed, “the court has no discretion to deny the dropping of a defendant by a plaintiff.” Chrysler Corp. v. Hames, 345 So. 2d 813, 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). The effect of the notice was described by this court in Federal Insurance Co. v. Fatolitis, 478 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), as follows: Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.250(b) provides that a party may be dropped from…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence