Fisher Island Holdings, L.L.C. v. Potash

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fisher Island Holdings, L.L.C. v. Potash

867 So. 2d 450, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 899, 2004 WL 231444

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 4, 2004

DocketNo. 3D03-3334

StatusPublished

This text of 867 So. 2d 450 (Fisher Island Holdings, L.L.C. v. Potash) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fisher Island Holdings, L.L.C. v. Potash, 867 So. 2d 450, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 899, 2004 WL 231444 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse an order of the trial court staying and abating an arbitration instituted by Fisher Island Holdings, L.L.C. (“Holdings”), a non-party to the litigation pending between the appellees. No jurisdiction over Holdings was obtained by judicial process, and Holdings did not voluntarily appear in the pending litigation by seeking any affirmative relief. Therefore, it was inappropriate to enter the order under review. See ATM Ltd. v. Caporicci Footwear Ltd., Corp., 867 So.2d 413, 2003 WL 22900630 (Fla. 3d DCA December 10, 2003); Norville v. BellSouth Advertising & Pub. Corp., 664 So.2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Moretto v. Staub, 370 So.2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

This matter is returned to the trial court, which may consider appropriate proceedings to formally bring Holdings within the pending litigation as an interested party.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We reverse an order of the trial court staying and abating an arbitration instituted by Fisher Island Holdings, L.L.C. (“Holdings”), a non-party to the litigation pending between the appellees. No jurisdiction over Holdings was obtained by judicial process, and Holdings did not voluntarily appear in the pending litigation by seeking any affirmative relief. Therefore, it was inappropriate to enter the order under review. See ATM Ltd. v. Caporicci Footwear Ltd., Corp., 867 So.2d 413, 2003 WL 22900630 (Fla. 3d DCA December 10, 2003); Norville v. BellSouth Advertising & Pub. Corp., 664 So.2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Moretto v. Staub, 370 So.2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

This matter is returned to the trial court, which may consider appropriate proceedings to formally bring Holdings within the pending litigation as an interested party.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

867 So. 2d 450, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 899, 2004 WL 231444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fisher-island-holdings-llc-v-potash-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack