ALVAREZ, FELTMAN & DA SILVA, P.L., ETC.
v.
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
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.
AFDC, a law firm, appealed orders awarding prevailing party costs to Shell and Ramrod entities after the trial court found AFDC's notices of withdrawal of charging liens were untimely notices of voluntary dismissal, or alternatively operated as an adjudication on the merits under the two-dismissal rule. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment.
The court affirmed the trial court's determination that the notices of withdrawal were untimely notices of voluntary dismissal or, in the alternative, operated as an adjudication on the merits under the two-dismissal rule, thus entitling Summerland and Ramrod to prevailing party costs under section 57.041, Florida Statutes.
[1] A notice of withdrawal of a charging lien filed after a hearing on a motion for summary judgment is untimely and operates as a voluntary dismissal.
[2] A voluntary dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits when the plaintiff has previously dismissed an action based on or including the same claim.
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“In the omnibus orders under review, the trial court found AFDC's notices of withdrawal of charging lien, filed on October 24, 2022, were tantamount to untimely notices of voluntary dismissal of AFDC's claim for fees. Alternatively, the trial court found that even if the notices were not untimely, they operated as an 'adjudication on the merits' under the two-dismissal rule.”
Establishes the two alternative grounds for the trial court's ruling that AFDC relied on on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAFDC filed notices of withdrawal of charging liens on October 24, 2022. The trial court determined these notices were tantamount to untimely notices o…
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 Two-Dismissal Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 2, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
Nos. 3D23-0613 & 3D23-0614 Lower Tribunal Nos. 19-251-K, 19-146-K
________________
Alvarez, Feltman & Da Silva, P.L. n/k/a Alvarez, Feltman,
Da Silva & Costa, P.L.,
Appellant,
vs.
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, et al.,
Appellees. Appeals from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Timothy J. Koenig, Judge. Alvarez, Feltman, Da Silva & Costa, P.L., and Paul B. Feltman, for appellant. Davis Goldman, PLLC, Jason N. Goldman and Maidenly Macaluso, for appellees Shell of Summerland, Inc., Shell of Ramrod, Inc., and Ramrod Property Investments, LLC. Before EMAS, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. GORDO, J.
In these appeals, Alvarez, Feltman & Da Silva, P.L. n/k/a Alvarez,
Feltman, Da Silva & Costa P.L. (“AFDC”) appeals the omnibus orders entering final judgments and awarding prevailing party costs pursuant to section 57.041, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
1.420(d) in favor of Shell of Summerland, Inc. (“Summerland”) and Ramrod
Property Investments, LLC and Shell of Ramrod, Inc. (collectively,
“Ramrod”). We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
In the omnibus orders under review, the trial court found AFDC’s notices of withdrawal of charging lien, filed on October 24, 2022, were tantamount to untimely notices of voluntary dismissal of AFDC’s claim for fees. Alternatively, the trial court found that even if the notices were not untimely, they operated as an “adjudication on the merits” under the two-
dismissal rule. On appeal, AFDC challenges both rulings. Because we find no error in the trial court’s determination that the notices were untimely or, in the alternative, that Summerland and Ramrod would be entitled to the entry of final judgment pursuant to the two-dismissal rule, we affirm. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(a)(1) (permitting a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action by filing a notice of voluntary dismissal “at any time before a hearing on motion for summary judgment”); Stonely v. Moore, 851 So. 2d 905, 906 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2003) (“In the present case, the notice [of voluntary dismissal] was not filed until after the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. At that point, the plaintiffs could not dismiss the action by filing a notice . . . .”); Britt v. Knowles, 792 So. 2d 635, 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.420(a)(1) [also] provides that a notice of voluntary dismissal
‘operates as an adjudication on the merits when served by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in any court an action based on or including the same claim.’” (quoting Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(a)(1))); Variety Children’s Hosp. v. Mt. Sinai
Hosp. of Greater Mia., Inc., 448 So. 2d 546, 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (finding the two-dismissal rule of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420 applied where the “underlying transaction” was the same).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fernandez v. Old Republic Nat'l Title Ins. Co. (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Variety Child's. Hosp. v. MT. Sinai Hosp. OF Greater Miami, Inc., 448 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Stonely v. Moore, 851 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Britt v. Knowles, 792 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)