HAFT-GAINES COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, RELATOR,
v.
THE HONORABLE THOMAS J. REDDICK, JUDGE OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
Haft-Gaines Company sought a writ of prohibition to prevent a trial court from proceeding with a case after it had been dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a stipulation signed by both parties. The court granted the writ, holding that the trial court's jurisdiction terminated completely upon entry of the final dismissal order.
The trial court's jurisdiction terminated upon entry of the final dismissal order with prejudice, both as to subject matter and person, and therefore the court lacked authority to entertain subsequent motions or conduct a jury trial.
[1] A trial court's jurisdiction terminates upon the entry of a final order of dismissal pursuant to a joint stipulation.
[2] A stipulation for dismissal filed with the court, executed by the parties' attorneys, divests the court of jurisdiction over the cause.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We hold that the trial court's jurisdiction terminated after the final order of dismissal, pursuant to the joint stipulation, both as to subject matter and person.”
The court's core holding that dismissal with prejudice extinguishes all trial court jurisdiction over the matter.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff and defendant settled a dispute out of court, confirmed by letter. Both parties' attorneys executed and filed a 'Stipulation for Dismiss…
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 Stipulation Of Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
The Writ of Prohibition is Granted.
The facts are that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an out of court settlement of this cause confirmed by letter.1 In accordance with this settlement, attorneys for both sides executed and entered into a “Stipulation for Dismissal” filed with the court which read in toto:
COME NOW the parties Steve Weil and Haft-Gaines Company by and through their undersigned attorneys and stipulate that this action may be dismissed in accordance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420 with prejudice to both parties.
The disputed letter of settlement is not, and never was, a part of the record below, nor will we permit it to become so on appeal. Pursuant to the stipulation set forth above, the court then entered a final order on the basis thereof which simply said, “This action is dismissed . . . with prejudice to both parties.”
No further pleadings were attempted until twenty-four days later when the plaintiff below filed a motion in the same cause to “compel return of property.” As grounds, this motion set forth that the defendant below had failed to give over certain property pursuant to the out of court letter of settlement already referred to. Surprisingly, the prayer, at the conclusion of this motion, sought compensatory and punitive damages, costs and attorneys fees.
Predictably, a motion to dismiss was filed in opposition and the trial court correctly granted the motion to dismiss noting that it was without jurisdiction but that its ruling was without prejudice to the plaintiff below “to file a new law suit.”
Four months after the original order of dismissal pursuant to the written stipulations therefor, the plaintiff below next filed in the same cause a “motion to enforce settlement agreement” which once again sought, in the prayer, compensatory and punitive damages, fees and costs. There then ensued a hearing relative to a further motion to dismiss whereat the court concluded that it had all along retained equity jurisdiction. An order was then entered setting the cause for jury trial.
We hold that the trial court’s jurisdiction terminated after the final order of dismissal, pursuant to the joint stipulation, both as to subject matter and person. Shelby Mutual Insurance Company v. Pearson, 236 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1970). See also Cannon Sand and Rock Company v. Maule Industries, 203 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1967).
The Writ of Prohibition is hereby granted. The trial court has no jurisdiction and the scheduled jury trial may not take place.
ALDERMAN, C. J., and DOWNEY, J., concur. . The terms and contents of this letter are disputed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Luddy Gene Kight and Sandra M. Kight v. Capeletti Bros., 384 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…orida Statutes (1977), citing Maryland Casualty Co. v. Simmons, 193 So. 2d 446 (Fla.2d DCA 1966); and that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion because it had dismissed the case with prejudice, relying on Haft-Gaines Co. v. Reddick, 350 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Appellee countered by asserting that it could not have been required to file a notice of lien prior to the final judgment since at the time it was entered the com-pensability of the workmen’s compensation claim had not been fina…
-
Miraglia v. The Honorable Dwight L. Geiger, 463 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…ed petitioner’s motion to strike respondent’s motion for allowance of attorney’s fees, thus indicating its intention to proceed in excess of its jurisdiction, which justifies our issuance of a writ of prohibition. See Haft-Gaines Company v. Reddick, 350 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Accordingly, Writ of Prohibition is issued and the trial court is prohibited from proceeding further in this cause on the motion for allowance of attorney’s fee for the wife. DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur. HURLEY, J.,…
Authorities Cited
- Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. OF Shelby v. Tillman Pearson, 236 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1970)
- Cannon Sand & Rock, Inc. v. Maule Indus., Inc., 203 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)