Sopena v. Rowland Coffee Roasters, Inc., 97-2706
| Decision Date | 08 July 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-2706,97-2706 |
| Citation | 716 So.2d 799 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1621 Marcio SOPENA, Appellant, v. ROWLAND COFFEE ROASTERS, INC., and Q & P Coffee, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Eddy O. Marban, Miami, for appellant.
Vila & Padron, and Oscar J. Vila, III, Coral Gables, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and LEVY and SORONDO, JJ.
Marcio Sopena ("Sopena") appeals an order denying Sopena's motion for attorney's fees and costs following a voluntary dismissal by Rowland Coffee Roasters ("Rowland").
Initially, we note that an order denying or awarding attorney's fees and costs after a voluntary dismissal is properly reviewed by petition for writ of certiorari. See Chatlos v. City of Hallandale, 220 So.2d 353, 354 (Fla.1968); O.A.G. Corp. v. Britamco Underwriters, Inc., 707 So.2d 785, 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). We therefore treat this appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, grant the petition, and quash the order of the trial court.
Rowland first argues that Sopena lost the right to attorney's fees by virtue of his failure to plead same. We disagree. The exception noted in Stockman v. Downs, 573 So.2d 835, 838 (Fla.1991), is applicable in this case, as Rowland by its conduct recognized or acquiesced to that claim, or otherwise failed to object to the failure to plead entitlement, and thus waived any objection to the failure to plead a claim for attorney's fees. Id.; see also, Laguna Palms Properties, Ltd. v. Long, 622 So.2d 556, 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
Moreover, Sopena is entitled to attorney's fees as the prevailing party under the employment contract. "In general, when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses an action, the defendant is the prevailing party." Thornber v. City of Ft. Walton Beach, 568 So.2d 914, 919 (Fla.1990); see also, Stuart Plaza, Ltd. v. Atlantic Coast Development Corp., 493 So.2d 1136, 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); McKelvey v. Kismet, Inc., 430 So.2d 919, 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The litigation had concluded in this case, and Sopena was the prevailing party. The dismissal by Rowland was not a strategic determination. See Wilson v. Rose Printing Co., 624 So.2d 257, 258 (Fla.1993); Simmons v. Schimmel, 476 So.2d 1342, 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). It is apparent from the record that it was related to the merits of the case, as none of the witnesses listed by Rowland displayed any knowledge of any of the allegations of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michlitsch v. Meyer
...Generally, "when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses an action, the defendant is the prevailing party." Sopena v. Rowland Coffee Roasters, Inc., 716 So.2d 799, 800 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.1998) (citations omitted); 20 Am.Jur.2d Costs § 22 (1995). Here, Michlitsch voluntarily dismissed the action; th......
-
DSSDR, LLC v. Zenith Infotech, Ltd.
...party where he paid substantially all of the plaintiff's claim before the voluntary dismissal); Sopena v. Rowland Coffee Roasters, Inc., 716 So. 2d 799, 800 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998) (defendant was prevailing party where voluntary dismissal was "not a strategic determination"); Simmons v. ......
-
Roldan v. Citibank, N.A.
...Wargo and Susan Capote, for appellee.Before ROTHENBERG, LOGUE, and SCALES, JJ.OpinionPER CURIAM.Affirmed. Sopena v. Rowland Coffee Roasters, Inc., 716 So.2d 799, 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) ; Englander v. St. Francis Hosp., Inc., 506 So.2d 423, 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (en banc); Simmons v. Schimm......
-
Green Tree Vendor Services Corp. v. Lisi, 98-2211.
...review a non-final order. See Rose Printing Co., Inc. v. Wilson, 602 So.2d 600, 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Sopena v. Rowland Coffee Roasters, Inc., 716 So.2d 799, 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). We nevertheless dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction, because the motion for rehearing directed t......