Maharaj v. Grossman, 93-0840
| Decision Date | 28 May 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-0840,93-0840 |
| Citation | 619 So.2d 399 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D1358 Ricky MAHARAJ and Chandra Maharaj, Petitioners, v. Alexander GROSSMAN, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack T. Frost, Gunther & Whitaker, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners.
George S. Berwig, Thomas T. Grimmett, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for respondent Salvatore Sannasardo.
Michael S. Bendell, Michael Bendell, P.A., Boca Raton, for respondent Alexander Grossman.
We grant certiorari and order consolidation of three lawsuits arising out of the same automobile accident.
Respondent plaintiff, Alexander Grossman, who opposes consolidation, alleged that he and his wife were injured in an accident when Ricky Maharaj made a left turn and collided with Sannasardo, who was coming from the opposite direction, which resulted in the Maharaj car then striking the Grossmans' car, which was stopped at a red light. Alexander and Muriel Grossman, husband and wife, were both injured, and Muriel later died of causes apparently unrelated to the accident. Three separate lawsuits were filed as a result of the accident.
In March of 1992 Alexander Grossman sued the Maharajes and his UM carrier for his injuries. In July of 1992 the Maharajes moved for leave to file a third party complaint for contribution against Sannasardo, which the court denied.
In September of 1992 Alexander Grossman, as personal representative of the estate of his deceased wife, Muriel, sued the Maharajes for the injuries sustained by Muriel. In that case the Maharajes filed a third party complaint against Sannasardo seeking contribution.
In December of 1992 the Maharajes sued Sannasardo for contribution on the claim of Alexander Grossman for his injuries.
In February of 1993 the Maharajes moved, in the first case, which days earlier had been set for trial in June, 1993, to consolidate the three lawsuits. The court denied consolidation, stating that "this case needs to be brought to a final conclusion." The Maharajes seek review by certiorari, and Sannasardo supports their position, arguing that without consolidation there could be inconsistent verdicts, citing Tommie v. LaChance, 412 So.2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA1982). There this court granted certiorari, and concluded that the denial of consolidation of two plaintiff's cases arising out of the same accident was a departure from the essential requirements of law not remediable by final appeal, because of the possibility of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pages v. Dominguez By and Through Dominguez
...accident consolidation is required, rendering the failure to consolidate an abuse of discretion. To the extent that Maharaj v. Grossman, 619 So.2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), contains dicta to this effect and to the extent that the first district in U-Haul Co. of Northern Florida, Inc. v. Whit......
-
Lee v. Lee
...stated, "While disposing of cases is important, it is not as important as the efficient and proper administration of justice." Maharaj, 619 So.2d at 401. both the partition court and the family law court abused their discretion in denying the motions to consolidate, on remand, the cases mus......
-
Lee v. Lee
...motion to consolidate. Pages v. Dominguez By and Through Dominguez, 652 So.2d 864, 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); see also Maharaj v. Grossman, 619 So.2d 399, 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (quashing order denying consolidation where "the trial judge apparently denied consolidation because the case assi......
-
Hickey v. Pompano K of C, Inc., 94-1253
...one defendant, as a result of a single accident, on the grounds that there could be inconsistent verdicts. See Maharaj v. Grossman, 619 So.2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Tommie v. LaChance, 412 So.2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). See also U-Haul Co. of Northern Florida, Inc. v. White, 503 So.2d 332......