City of St. Petersburg v. Circuit Court of Sixth Judicial Circuit
| Decision Date | 14 July 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1372,82-1372 |
| Citation | 422 So.2d 18 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, Florida, a municipal corporation, Petitioner, v. The CIRCUIT COURT OF the SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT and the Honorable David Seth Walker, as Circuit Judge thereof, Respondents. |
Michael S. Davis, City Atty., and William N. Drake, Jr., Asst. City Atty., St. Petersburg, for petitioner.
Gerald R. Colen of Devito & Colen, St. Petersburg, for Lillie M. Johnson.
The City of St. Petersburg seeks to prohibit the trial court from further entertaining jurisdiction on Lillie M. Johnson's negligence claim against the city.
The several parties in the litigation have filed numerous pleadings, but for the purpose of resolving this petition it is sufficient to note the following. Mrs. Johnson sued Ms. Williams and the city as well as other defendants in negligence for causing the death of her husband, and Ms. Williams filed a cross-claim against the city. The court dismissed Mrs. Johnson's first amended complaint against the city with prejudice. Mrs. Johnson did not appeal this order. Eleven months later and while the suit was still pending against the other defendants, Mrs. Johnson filed a motion to amend her first amended complaint so as to once again sue the city in negligence, albeit upon more comprehensive allegations. The court granted the motion to amend, thereby reinstating Mrs. Johnson's claim against the city.
The city contends that once Mrs. Johnson's first amended complaint against it was dismissed with prejudice and no appeal was taken, the court lost jurisdiction to further entertain Mrs. Johnson's claim against it. Mrs. Johnson argues that because Ms. Williams' cross-claim against the city remains pending on the same issue, the court has jurisdiction to reinstate the similar claim against the city now asserted by Mrs. Johnson.
When a court's jurisdiction over the subject matter is terminated, prohibition is the proper remedy to prevent further action from being taken. State ex rel. Huntley Bros., Inc. v. Gooding, 149 So.2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963); State ex rel. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Kehoe, 133 So.2d 459 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Therefore, this case turns on whether the court lost jurisdiction to further entertain the claim of Mrs. Johnson against the city when the time for obtaining a rehearing or taking an appeal from the order dismissing that claim with prejudice expired.
An order dismissing a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woodson v. Martin
...PARKER, ALTENBERND and BLUE, JJ., concur. 1 We have jurisdiction of this appeal. See City of St. Petersburg v. Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, 422 So.2d 18 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).2 The need for this rule arose, in large part, because parties were beginning to apply professional mal......
-
THOMAS v. The Hosp. Bd. of Dir.S of LEE County
...and Mr. McCurdy, we construe the trial court's order to be a final appealable order. See City of St. Petersburg v. Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, 422 So.2d 18, 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). III. General Principles Regarding Summary Judgment "A movant is entitled to summary judgment `......
-
Fonseca v. Taverna Imports, Inc.
...293, 296–97 (Fla.1977) ; see also Durham v. Butler, 89 So.3d 1023, 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) ; City of St. Petersburg v. Cir. Ct. of the Sixth Jud. Cir., 422 So.2d 18, 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).Because the trial court is without jurisdiction to modify the judgments and order on appeal, we grant t......
-
Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Culbreath Isles Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc.
...in a given case. See City of Sanibel v. Maxwell, 925 So.2d 486, 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); City of St. Petersburg v. Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, 422 So.2d 18, 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). The question becomes whether the circuit court in this case had jurisdiction to allow the filin......