Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

November 17, 2017 by admin

Civil procedure — Relief from judgment — Final judgment entered by circuit court was not void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, although damages awarded were less than $15,000, where complaint, in good faith, sought damages in excess of $15,000, conferring jurisdiction on circuit court notwithstanding ultimate damage award

42
Fla. L. Weekly D2408bTop of Form

Civil
procedure — Relief from judgment — Final judgment entered by circuit court
was not void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, although damages awarded
were less than $15,000, where complaint, in good faith, sought damages in
excess of $15,000, conferring jurisdiction on circuit court notwithstanding
ultimate damage award

JULIO PLUTT, an individual, JAZWARES
DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Florida Corporation, BRIGHT PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida
Corporation, Appellants, v. MICHELE ROSS, Appellee. 4th District. Case No.
4D17-1906. November 8, 2017. Appeal of non-final order from the Circuit Court
for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; John T. Luzzo, Judge;
L.T. Case No. 09-10145. Counsel: Geoffrey D. Ittleman of The Law Offices of
Geoffrey D. Ittleman, P.A., for appellants. Melissa E. Roque and Steven D.
Gonzalez of Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC, for appellee.

(FORST, J.) Julio Plutt, Jazwares
Distribution, Inc., and Bright Products, Inc. (“Appellants”) appeal the circuit
court’s denial of their Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) motion to
vacate a final judgment awarding Appellee Michele Ross $7,092.56. In their
motion, Appellants contended that the final judgment entered by the circuit
court was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in
controversy did not exceed $15,000. We affirm because the complaint, in good
faith, sought damages in excess of $15,000, conferring jurisdiction on the
circuit court notwithstanding the ultimate damage award.

Background

In 2009, Appellee filed a complaint
against Appellants in Broward County circuit court. She alleged that Appellants
breached a contract in which she agreed to author children’s books in exchange
for a royalty or commission on all book sales, ranging from 1.5 to 3.5 percent.
Appellee further alleged that Appellants failed to provide any of the
agreed-upon compensation despite her performance under the contract. Regarding
damages, Appellee alleged: “All claims made herein are for damages in access
[sic] of $15,000.00, exclusive of attorneys’ fees, interest and costs.”

Following years of litigation and
discovery, Appellee successfully moved for a default. Appellee then filed a
motion for summary judgment. The motion stated that the proceeds from the sales
of Appellee’s books amounted to $202,644.81. Based on the formula in the
subject contract, Appellee asserted that Appellants owed her $7,092.56 “in
royalties.” However, she also claimed to have suffered total damages of
$209,737.37, which was the sum of the royalties and the sale proceeds. The
trial court entered an order granting the motion for summary judgment and
stating that Appellee was entitled to $7,092.56 in damages. The final judgment
awarded that amount, in addition to costs and pre-judgment interest, for a
total award of $13,695.58.

More than a year after entry of the
final judgment, Appellants filed a motion to vacate. They asserted that the
circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Appellee stated in her
summary judgment motion that she was due $7,092.56 in damages for unpaid
royalties. Appellants argued that Appellee effectively acknowledged that the
court was without jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not exceed
the $15,000 threshold needed to invoke the circuit court’s jurisdiction.

The trial court entered an order
denying the motion to vacate without explanation. This non-final appeal
follows. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5).

Analysis

We generally review a trial court’s
ruling on a motion to vacate for an abuse of discretion. Vercosa v. Fields,
174 So. 3d 550, 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). However, “[w]hether a judgment is void
is a question of law reviewed de novo.” Id.

A party may move at any time to
vacate a final judgment as void due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Kathleen
G. Kozinski, P.A. v. Phillips
, 126 So. 3d 1264, 1268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
Florida circuit courts have subject matter jurisdiction over actions at law in
which the matter in controversy exceeds $15,000, exclusive of interest, costs,
and attorney’s fees. See §§ 26.012(2)(a) and 34.01(1)(c), Fla. Stat.
(2016). “[A] court’s subject matter jurisdiction over a case generally depends
on the good-faith allegations in the complaint as to an amount in controversy.”
Bogdanoff v. Broken Sound Club, Inc., 154 So. 3d 410, 411 (Fla. 4th DCA
2014). “The test in determining the jurisdiction of the court ‘is the amount in
good faith
claimed or put in controversy when the action is commenced.’ ” Thibadeau
v. Santini Bros., Inc.
, 315 So. 2d 550, 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (quoting Castellano
v. Bader Bros. Van Lines, Inc.
, 208 So. 2d 842, 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)).

Once jurisdiction is properly
invoked by filing the complaint, “the circuit court retain[s] jurisdiction to
enter an award, irrespective of the amount.”1 Cooperativa De Seguros Multiples
De v. Cintron
, 44 So. 3d 623, 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (Torpy, J.,
concurring); see also Thibadeau, 315 So. 2d at 552; PHILIP J. PADOVANO,
FLORIDA CIVIL PRACTICE § 1.5 (2016 ed.) (“If the jurisdiction of the circuit
court is invoked by a proper allegation, it will not be defeated on the ground
that the award of damages is less than the jurisdictional amount for filing a
case in the circuit court.”).

In this case, Appellee asserted in
her complaint that “[a]ll claims made herein are for damages in access [sic] of
$15,000.00, exclusive of attorneys’ fees, interest and costs.” There is no
evidence in the record that Appellee’s claim for damages in excess of $15,000
in her complaint was not made in good faith (the lower amount sought by
Appellee in her subsequent motion for summary judgment was calculated from
sales numbers obtained only in the course of discovery). Moreover, Appellants
explicitly conceded the “good faith” issue in their reply brief. Cf. Cintron,
44 So. 3d at 625 (Orfinger, J., dissenting) (stating that, where plaintiff knew
damages were below jurisdictional threshold when filing amended complaint, the
plaintiff’s claim for damages in excess of $15,000 “could not have . . . been
made in good faith”).

Conclusion

The circuit court in this case had
subject matter jurisdiction at the time it entered the final judgment because
it had jurisdiction at the time Appellee filed the complaint, where she sought
in good faith, damages in excess of $15,000. Consequently, the subsequent
motion to vacate was without merit.

Affirmed. (WARNER, J., concurs. GROSS, J., concurs in result.)

__________________

1While this
means a circuit court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for $15,000 or less
(assuming a good-faith demand in the complaint), “notwithstanding the bona
fides of the plaintiff’s demand at the time of institution of suit, as a matter
of judicial power the county court is precluded from entering a judgment
for damages in excess of its mandated jurisdiction.” White v. Marine Transp.
Lines, Inc.
, 372 So. 2d 81, 84 (Fla. 1979) (emphasis added); accord
Bogdanoff
, 154 So. 3d at 411.

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Winn-Dixie, website, customers, prescription, place of public accommodation, coupons, refills, privileges, disabled, advantages, accommodations, visually-impaired, auxiliary, public accommodation, inaccessible, barrier, offerings, sighted, majority opinion, intangible, enjoyment, locator, rewards, card, district court, facilities, shopping, software, communicate, in-store – The difficulties caused by the customer’s inability to access much of the store’s website constituted a concrete and particularized injury that was not conjectural or hypothetical, and would continue if the website remained inaccessible; [2]-The statutory language in Title III of the ADA defining “public accommodation” was unambiguous and clear, and public accommodations were limited to actual, physical places, and websites were not a place of public accommodation under the statute; [3]-The store’s website did not constitute an intangible barrier to the customer’s ability to access and enjoy fully the physical grocery store; [4]-Absent congressional action that broadened the definition of “places of public accommodation” to include websites, the appellate court could not extend ADA liability to the facts presented.
  • Civil rights — Employment discrimination — Pharmacist employed by Department of Veterans Affairs brought action against Secretary, alleging that her managers at VA medical center discriminated against her based on her gender and age, retaliated against her because she engaged in protected activity, and subjected her to hostile work environment in violation of Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act — Retaliation — Title VII’s federal-sector retaliation provision requires personnel actions to be made free from any discrimination — Supreme Court’s decision in pharmacist’s case, which held that federal-sector provision of ADEA did not require plaintiff to prove that age was a but-for cause of a challenged personnel action, undermined to the point of abrogation Eleventh Circuit’s prior panel precedent holding that Title VII’s federal-sector retaliation provision requires but-for causation — Standard that Supreme Court articulated for claims under ADEA’s federal-sector provision controls cases arising under Title VII’s nearly identical federal-sector provision — Retaliatory hostile work environment — An actionable federal-sector Title VII retaliatory-hostile-work-environment claim must describe conduct that rises to the level of personnel actions and must be evaluated under “might have dissuaded a reasonable worker” standard rather than the more stringent “severe or pervasive” standard
  • Insurance — Personal injury protection — Reasonable, related, and necessary medical treatment — Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Opposing affidavit — Trial court abused its discretion in granting motion to strike affidavit of independent medical examiner based on plaintiff’s claim that affidavit “baldly repudiated” affiant’s deposition testimony regarding relationship between injuries and accident and medical necessity of chiropractic treatment — Because affiant’s testimony raised genuine issue of material fact, as it clearly conflicted with testimony of treating chiropractor, order granting summary judgment in favor of assignee/medical provider reversed
  • Wrongful death — Automobile accident — Jurors — Peremptory challenge — Race neutral explanation — Genuineness — New trial — Evidence — Trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial based on its improper denial of plaintiff’s peremptory challenge of juror — Trial court failed to apply proper legal standard in denying plaintiff’s peremptory strike of juror where it failed to recognize the presumption that plaintiff was exercising her peremptory challenge in a nondiscriminatory manner and hold defendants to their burden of proving purposeful discrimination — Fact that juror was sole African American juror left on the panel is, standing alone, insufficient to override a genuine race-neutral challenge — Trial court erred in granting a new trial based on its determination that verdict finding one of the defendants 100% liable for the fatal accident was against the manifest weight of the evidence — Order shows that trial court improperly re-weighed the evidence and acted as a seventh juror in doing so — Trial court erred in permitting jury to hear evidence related to defendant’s driving history where not only was the evidence unduly prejudicial, but the citations bore no similarity to the circumstances at issue and had no relevance to defendant’s alleged negligence at the time of the accident — Trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion notwithstanding verdict which asserted that defendant should not be liable for the total amount of damages to co-defendant’s tractor-trailer — A new-trial order and order for judgment notwithstanding verdict are mutually inconsistent and may not be granted simultaneously unless granted on the express condition that the order granting the judgment notwithstanding verdict only becomes effective if the order granting new trial is reversed on appeal, which did not happen in this case
  • Workers’ compensation — Prosthetic devices — Limitation of actions — Claimant who had screws and rods inserted in her spine as a result of an injury occurring in 1990 — Judge of compensation claims erred in rejecting employer/carrier’s statute of limitations defense to claim for pain management and a replacement mechanical bed — While applicable 1989 version of workers’ compensation law contained an exemption from its statute of limitations to the right for remedial attention relating to the insertion or attachment of a prosthetic device, there is no evidence that either the prosthesis, or the surgery required to insert it, is causing the need for the requested benefits as opposed to the underlying condition that necessitated the prosthesis in the first place — Fact that claimant may have a prosthetic device is not, standing alone, sufficient to prevent statute of limitations from accruing

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982