Robinson v. Royal Bank of Canada
This text of 462 So. 2d 101 (Robinson v. Royal Bank of Canada) 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.
Opinion
Gerald ROBINSON, Petitioner,
v.
The ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, Respondent.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
*102 Michael W. Moskowitz and Kenneth A. Rubin of Goldberg, Young & Borkson, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.
Hywel Leonard of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A., Tampa, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner seeks review of an order denying his motion to stay proceedings filed against him in Florida in deference to the prior and concurrent jurisdiction of a Canadian Court over an essentially identical suit. We have certiorari jurisdiction. See Bedingfield v. Bedingfield, 417 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). We grant the writ and quash the order.
The trial court clearly departed from the essential requirements of law by refusing to decline jurisdiction as a matter of comity. See Bradley Investment, Inc. v. Vimy Investment, Inc., 359 So.2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). A grant of stay is appropriate where two actions are pending simultaneously which involve the same parties and substantially the same causes of action. See Thomas v. English, 448 So.2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
ANSTEAD, C.J., and LETTS and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
462 So. 2d 101, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 193, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 11975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-royal-bank-of-canada-fladistctapp-1985.