SHANDS TEACHING HOSP. v. Beech Street Corp., 1D01-1711.
Decision Date | 31 May 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 1D01-1711.,1D01-1711. |
Citation | 820 So.2d 979 |
Parties | SHANDS TEACHING HOSPITAL AND CLINICS, INC., Appellant, v. BEECH STREET CORPORATION and Unisys Corporation, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Joel W. Walters of Walters, Levine, Brown, Klingensmith & Thomison, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellant.
Jerome W. Hoffman and Susan L. Kelsey, of Holland & Knight LLP, Tallahassee, for Beech Street Corporation.
David K. Miller and Maura Bolivar, of Broad and Cassel, Tallahassee, for Unisys Corporation, for Appellees.
In this appeal from a final summary judgment, we conclude that the trial court erred in finding the action commenced below barred by the rule of preclusion. In an earlier federal action brought by appellant, Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., against appellees, Beech Street Corp. and Unisys Corp., the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida found the suit barred on Eleventh Amendment grounds and determined "this suit may only be brought in state court." See Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Beech St. Corp. and Unisys Corp., No. GCA 98cv87 MMP (N.D.Fla. Jan. 5, 1999) (unpublished order). On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. See Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Beech St. Corp., Unisys Corp., 208 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2000). Because the federal decisions were based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, Shands was not precluded from filing the action in state court. See Trammell v. State, 622 So.2d 1257, 1261 (Miss.1993) () . We do not reach any other matters argued by the parties. REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
SHANDS TEACHING HOSP. v. Beech St. Corp.
...immunity, Shands was not precluded from filing the action in state court." See Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Beech St. Corp. and Unisys Corp., 820 So.2d 979, 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Proceedings on remand from our initial decision led to the second supplemental and amended compla......
- Muller v. State, 1D99-1888.