State ex rel. Terminal Transport Co. v. Earnest

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State ex rel. Terminal Transport Co. v. Earnest

262 So. 2d 469, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6764

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 23, 1972

DocketNo. 72-474

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 262 So. 2d 469 (State ex rel. Terminal Transport Co. v. Earnest) 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

State ex rel. Terminal Transport Co. v. Earnest, 262 So. 2d 469, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6764 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

CARROLL, Judge.

By suggestion in prohibition it was alleged by the defendant in an action in the civil court of record of Dade County (Case No. 71-4894) that the respondent judge on pretrial conference entered an order dismissing the cause on February IS, 1972; that no action was taken by the plaintiff with respect thereto until March 6, 1972, when plaintiff moved for leave to file a second amended complaint; and that the trial court entered an order granting the motion on March 29, 1972. We issued a rule nisi in prohibition. No response was filed thereto, but a brief was filed on behalf of the respondent.

After hearing, we hold that by virtue of Rule 1.420(b) FRCP, 30 F.S.A. the order of dismissal was with prejudice; that with no motion having been filed within the time allowed therefor, for rehearing or reconsideration thereof, the judgment of dismissal became final; and that thereafter the court was without jurisdiction to entertain and act upon the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, where such motion was not predicated on any ground of mistake or inadvertence of the court in dismissing the cause (with prejudice).

Whereupon, it is ordered that the rule nisi in prohibition heretofore issued by this court is made absolute, and that the relator is entitled to issuance of a writ of prohibition. Issuance of a formal writ will be withheld, upon the assumption of compliance herewith by the trial court without it. The action of this court, and prohibition as herein granted, shall not operate to deprive the trial court of jurisdiction in said cause of any justiciable matter which may be presented to it with reference thereto pursuant to Rule 1.540 FRCP, 31 F.S.A.

It is so ordered.

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

CARROLL, Judge.

By suggestion in prohibition it was alleged by the defendant in an action in the civil court of record of Dade County (Case No. 71-4894) that the respondent judge on pretrial conference entered an order dismissing the cause on February IS, 1972; that no action was taken by the plaintiff with respect thereto until March 6, 1972, when plaintiff moved for leave to file a second amended complaint; and that the trial court entered an order granting the motion on March 29, 1972. We issued a rule nisi in prohibition. No response was filed thereto, but a brief was filed on behalf of the respondent.

After hearing, we hold that by virtue of Rule 1.420(b) FRCP, 30 F.S.A. the order of dismissal was with prejudice; that with no motion having been filed within the time allowed therefor, for rehearing or reconsideration thereof, the judgment of dismissal became final; and that thereafter the court was without jurisdiction to entertain and act upon the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, where such motion was not predicated on any ground of mistake or inadvertence of the court in dismissing the cause (with prejudice).

Whereupon, it is ordered that the rule nisi in prohibition heretofore issued by this court is made absolute, and that the relator is entitled to issuance of a writ of prohibition. Issuance of a formal writ will be withheld, upon the assumption of compliance herewith by the trial court without it. The action of this court, and prohibition as herein granted, shall not operate to deprive the trial court of jurisdiction in said cause of any justiciable matter which may be presented to it with reference thereto pursuant to Rule 1.540 FRCP, 31 F.S.A.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 So. 2d 469, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-terminal-transport-co-v-earnest-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack