Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(1) allows a plaintiff to dismiss a case before trial without needing permission from the court. However, some courts have made an exception to this rule based on old cases. This exception causes unnecessary confusion and should be reconsidered by Florida courts. In the Service Experts case, the plaintiff wanted to dismiss the case they had been fighting for two years. The defendants argued that they should be able to keep fighting because they had certain rights in the case. The trial court agreed with the defendants, but the appeals court said that the defendants didn’t really have any rights that they would lose if the case was dismissed. They mentioned a common law exception but the sources they cited didn’t actually support it. In the end, the appeals court said the defendants couldn’t keep the case going. Romar International, Inc. dropped its lawsuit against some defendants before the trial, but the court still ordered them to pay the defendants’ legal fees. However, the appeals court said the trial court didn’t have the power to do that. In the Visoly case, the court denied the plaintiff’s request to drop the lawsuit because it was made too late. In 2002, the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Ormond Beach Assocs. created a rule that says if a court has made a decision in a case, the plaintiff can’t just dismiss the case without the defendant’s consent. This rule is not new and can be traced back to a U.S. Supreme Court case from 1884 and a Florida Supreme Court case from 1910. These older cases support the idea that once a court has made a decision, the plaintiff can’t just dismiss the case on their own. In simpler terms, a court can dismiss a case without prejudice if it won’t harm the defendant’s rights. However, if the defendant has asked for something specific, or if dismissing the case would be unfair or cause unnecessary delay, the court may not dismiss it without prejudice. In a recent case, the court dismissed the case because the defendants didn’t ask for anything specific. This rule comes from old laws and may not always apply to modern cases. In 1954, new rules for civil court cases were put in place in Florida to make the process easier and fairer. One of these rules, Rule 1.35, allowed a plaintiff to dismiss their case without the court’s permission. In 1966, the rule was changed to give the plaintiff the absolute right to dismiss their case without the court’s permission. However, in a case called Patterson v. Allstate, the court said this rule didn’t apply because Allstate had a right to a judgment in its favor. This means that the common law exception still sometimes applies, even though the rule says the plaintiff has the right to dismiss their case. The Patterson case shows how the law on voluntary dismissal is uncertain. In Ambory, the court said the plaintiff could dismiss the case, but in Patterson, the court said the defendant had a right to the decision and the plaintiff couldn’t dismiss the case. This makes it hard to know what the law is. The court in the Patterson case didn’t need to use a common law exception to make its decision. The rule is clear that a plaintiff can dismiss their case without prejudice before certain events happen. It’s a waste of time and money for the court and the parties involved to keep going with a case that the plaintiff doesn’t want to pursue anymore. The courts should stick to the plain language of the rule and make it clear that once the line is crossed, the case is over. In the case of Service Experts, LLC v. Northside Air Conditioning & Elec. Serv., Inc., a plaintiff can’t dismiss their case without the court’s permission if they’re trying to get out of trouble or if it’s like they’re asking the court to decide the case for them. Another case, Pino v. Bank of New York Mellon, also talked about this, but didn’t make a final decision. In that case, the bank tried to dismiss their case after they got in trouble for not attaching the right paperwork to their lawsuit. But the court said they couldn’t dismiss the case without the court’s permission because it looked like they were just trying to get out of trouble. After a lawsuit was filed, BNY tried to dismiss the case, but Pino said they committed fraud on the court. The court didn’t let Pino stop the dismissal because BNY hadn’t gotten anything from the court yet. Pino appealed this decision, saying that because of the fraud, the dismissal should be stopped. The appeals court agreed that fraud could be a reason to stop a dismissal, and asked the Florida Supreme Court to decide. Another appeals court also said there are exceptions to the right to dismiss a case, like if there’s fraud or if the case is at a stage like a summary judgment. This article only talks about the possible exception for fraud. Ormond Beach Associates made an offer to settle a case, but the court decided not to dismiss the case. They cited a rule that says a case can’t be dismissed if the defendant has made a counterclaim. This rule is meant to prevent unfairness to the defendant. This is a legal article written by lawyers Kurt E. Lee and Tim W. Sobczak. It talks about a case where a plaintiff has the right to dismiss their case before a certain point in the legal process. The article also mentions a specific Florida statute related to this rule. The Florida Bar wants its members to learn about duty and helping the public, make justice better, and improve the study of law.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/it-aint-over-til-its-over-the-common-law-exception-to-the-right-of-voluntary-dismissal-of-civil-actions/
Leave a Reply