BRUCE RANDOLPH GORDON AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
DANILO GOODRICH, 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.
A Florida appellate court addressed whether a trial court could dismiss a defendant's compulsory counterclaim when granting the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of the original complaint. The court held that once a circuit court obtains jurisdiction over a counterclaim based on an original claim exceeding jurisdictional limits, the counterclaim cannot be dismissed merely because it individually falls below the jurisdictional threshold.
The court affirmed the voluntary dismissal of the original complaint but reversed the dismissal of the counterclaim. Once a circuit court has jurisdiction over both claim and counterclaim based on the original claim exceeding jurisdictional limits, dismissal of the original claim does not divest the court of jurisdiction over the counterclaim, even if the counterclaim alone falls below the jurisdictional threshold.
[1] A voluntary dismissal of a plaintiff's complaint over a defendant's objection is impermissible if the defendant has served a counterclaim that can remain pending for inde…
[2] A counterclaim will not be dismissed for failure to meet the jurisdictional amount of the circuit court if the original claim upon which the counterclaim is based exceeds…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“If a counterclaim has been served by a defendant prior to the service upon him of the plaintiff's notice of dismissal, the action shall not be dismissed against defendant's objections unless the counterclaim can remain pending for independent adjudication by the court.”
Rule providing procedural protection for defendants' counterclaims when plaintiff seeks dismissal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee filed a complaint against appellants for injuries from an automobile accident. Appellants answered and filed a compulsory counterclaim. Durin…
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 Jurisdictional Amount cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is taken from an order granting appellee’s (plaintiff-counterdefendant) motion for voluntary dismissal over appellants’ (defendants-counterplaintiffs) objection.
Appellee filed a complaint against appellants for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Appellants subsequently answered the complaint and filed a compulsory counterclaim against appellee. At the day of the trial, during noon recess and after the jury had been empanelled, appel-lee moved for leave to take a voluntary dismissal of the complaint, pursuant to Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.420(a)(2). Appellants’ attorney objected to the voluntary dismissal and advised the court that the counter-claimants stood ready to proceed with the trial on the counterclaim. Nevertheless, the court granted the voluntary dismissal and by order, dismissed appellant’s counterclaim on the grounds that said counterclaim sought damages less than the court’s jurisdictional amount. In addition, the court directed that the action on the counterclaim (for property damage) be brought in the county court in and for Monroe County, Florida. From the above order, this appeal follows.
Florida. R.Civ.P. 1.420(a)(2) provides, in part, that:
“If a counterclaim has been served by a defendant prior to the service upon him of the plaintiff’s notice of dismissal, the action shall not be dismissed against defendant’s objections unless the counterclaim can remain pending for independent adjudication by the court.” [Emphasis added.]
In dismissing appellants’ counterclaim on the ground that the recovery sought would be less than the jurisdictional amount required by the circuit court, we believe the learned trial judge committed reversible error. Initially, we note that a counterclaim will not be dismissed for failure to meet the jurisdictional amount of the circuit court, as long as the original claim upon which the counterclaim is based exceeds the jurisdictional amount of said court. Columbus Mills, Inc. v. Dionne, 328 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Once the circuit court has jurisdiction over the claim and counterclaim, a subsequent dismissal of the claim will not divest the circuit court of jurisdiction over the counterclaim, even though said counterclaim, in and of itself, does not meet the jurisdictional amount of the circuit court. See National Juice Corporation v. Gilligan, 63 So. 2d 914 (Fla.1953).
Accordingly, that portion of the order dismissing the counterclaim is reversed and the cause is hereby remanded with directions to reinstate the counterclaim upon the trial docket. Johns v. Puca, 143 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). That portion of the order granting appellee’s motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(a)(2), is affirmed.
Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded with directions in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodriguez v. Silverstein, 359 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…9 Fla. 490 (1861); W. T. Hadlow Company v. Sargent, 61 Fla. 263, 54 So. 1003 (1911); Orange Julius Realty Corporation v. Sunshine Toy Center, Inc., 251 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Fears v. Lunsford, 314 So. 2d 578 (Fla.1975); Gordon v. Goodrich, 347 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420.…
-
Kinco Aviation, Inc. v. Sowell Aircraft Serv., Inc., 715 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…he action was pending, jurisdiction remains in the circuit court regardless of whether some or all of the counts of the counterclaim are thereafter dismissed. See National Juice Corporation v. Gilligan, 63 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1953); Gordon v. Goodrich, 347 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Watt v. Bill Branch Chevrolet, Inc., 292 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). See also City of Miami v. Jafra Steel [*377] Corporation, 184 So. 2d 178 (Fla.1966); A-One Coin Laundry Equipment Co. v. Waterside Towers Condominium Associat…
Authorities Cited
- Oren W. Shaffer v. Ross, 143 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Nat'l Juice Corp. v. Gilligan, 63 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1953)
- Columbus Mills, Inc. v. Dionne, 328 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)