RANDLE EASTERN AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
ELENA VASTA, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF LOUIS VASTA, DECEASED, FOR THE BENEFIT OF ELENA VASTA, RESPONDENT
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.
Randle Eastern Ambulance Service sought certiorari review of a trial court's decision to reinstate a wrongfully dismissed action under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's broad discretion to set aside a voluntary dismissal and reinstate an action where counsel's dismissal was taken due to mistake regarding the statute of limitations.
The court held that a voluntary dismissal is a 'proceeding' subject to review and reinstatement under Rule 1.540, and that the trial court's discretion under this rule is of the broadest scope and may only be reversed by clear showing that the facts do not legally support the exercise of that discretion.
[1] A voluntary dismissal entered in open court pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. …
[2] A trial court has jurisdiction to amend a voluntary dismissal under Fla.R.Civ.P. …
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“The discretion reposed in the trial judge by Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540 is of the broadest scope and may be reversed only by a clear showing that the facts of the case do not legally support the exercise of that discretion.”
Establishes the highly deferential standard for reviewing a trial court's decision to grant relief under Rule 1.540
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Elena Vasta brought a wrongful death action against Randle Eastern Ambulance Service for negligent ambulance services. During trial, the cou…
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 Wrongful Death Statute Of Limitations cases and more on FLexlaw
PEARSON, Judge.
We are presented with a petition for writ of certiorari to review an action of the trial judge taken pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540. The final judgment set aside was a voluntary dismissal entered in open court pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(a)(l)(i). The peti tioner urges that the trial court was without jurisdiction to reinstate the action where the plaintiff had exercised her absolute right to voluntarily dismiss the cause by entering into the record her notice of dismissal. Secondly, the petitioner urges that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by a clear abuse of its discretion in finding good cause for the reinstatement where the mistake claimed was not due to inadvertence or excusable neglect, but due to a mistake of the application of the law to the facts.
The order under review was entered under circumstances as follows: Plaintiff, who is the respondent, brought an action to recover for alleged wrongful death against Randle Eastern Ambulance Service, Inc., the petitioner, urging negligence in the performance of the ambulance services. At the trial, the plaintiff attempted to introduce evidence that the ambulance service was negligent in that it arrived late in response to the call. The trial court ruled that this evidence was not admissible under the allegations of the complaint, whereupon, the plaintiff took a voluntary dismissal by means of the following announcement:
“MR. LOGAN [Plaintiff’s Counsel]: After all of these discussions, we are taking a voluntary dismissal. If the statute hasn’t run we’ll have time to re-file.”
Thereafter, almost three months later, plaintiff filed a “Motion For Relief From Judgment of Voluntary Dismissal.” In the motion, the plaintiff alleged that prior to the voluntary dismissal, the death statute had run in the cause and that it was now too late to refile the action and that the voluntary dismissal had been taken as a result of mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect. The trial court granted the motion for relief upon the following finding:
“The above referenced Voluntary Dismissal is considered a ‘proceeding’ by this Court and therefore within the Court’s jurisdiction to amend. See Cooper v. Carroll, 239 So. 2d 511 (Fla.App. 3d 1970).
“Plaintiff’s motion for relief is granted due to counsel for the Plaintiff’s mistake in asking for a Voluntary Dismissal subsequent to the running of the applicable Wrongful Death Statute of Limitations. This cause is reinstated.”
We agree with the trial judge that this court’s holding in Cooper v. Carroll, 239 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), supports his holding that a voluntary dismissal is a proceeding which may be reached by Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.540. We note the decision of the Fourth District in Rich Motors, Inc. v. Loyd Cole Produce Express, Inc., 244 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), which appears to be contrary to our holding in Cooper. Nevertheless, we adhere to our prior holding for the reasons stated in Cooper. The discretion reposed in the trial judge by Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540 is of the broadest scope and may be reversed only by a clear showing that the facts of the case do not legally support the exercise of that discretion. See Farish v. Lum’s, Inc., 267 So. 2d 325 (Fla.1972). We, therefore, hold that there has been no showing of a departure from the essential requirements of the law.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Randle-Eastern Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. Vasta, 360 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1978)…s quashed and this case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. OVERTON, C. J., and SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. . Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(a)(1)(i). . Randle Eastern Ambulance Serv., Jnc. v. Vasta, 345 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). . Rich Motors, Inc. v. Loyd Cole Produce Express, Inc., 244 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). . Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. . Anderson v. Lovejoy, 354 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), pending on cert., No. 53,472 (Fla.). . See…
-
Schwab & Co., Inc. v. Breezy BAY, Inc., 360 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…). The discretion reposed in the trial judge by Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540 is of the broadest scope and in order to reverse a judge’s ruling thereunder, there must be a showing of a gross abuse of discretion. Randle Eastern Ambulance Service, Inc. v. Vasta, 345 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Chamberlin v. Mid-Century Insurance Company, 350 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). [*119] After reviewing the record in the case at bar, we cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion, grossly or otherwise in determining t…
-
Shampaine Indus., Inc. v. S. Broward Hosp. Dist., 411 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…Motors, Inc. v. Loyd Cole Produce Express, Inc., 244 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). The Florida Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction in Randle on the basis that the Third District’s disposition of that case, Randle-Eastern Ambulance Service v. Vasta, 345 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) was in conflict with Rich, a case which the Supreme Court then proceeded to approve. In Rich, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its conversion action without prejudice as a tactical response to the trial court’s apparent disincl…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Farish v. Lum's, Inc., 267 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1972)
- Cooper v. Carroll, 239 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Shands & Baker, Inc. v. Holmes Co., Inc., 244 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Rich Motors, Inc. v. Loyd Cole Produce Express, Inc., 244 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)