2D09-5416 / Service Experts, LLC. v. Northside Air Conditioning & Electrical Service, Inc.

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Second District Court of Appeal » 2010 » 2D09-5416 / Service Experts, LLC. v. Northside Air Conditioning & Electrical Service, Inc.

State: Florida

Court: Florida Southern District Court

Docket No: 2D09-5416

Case Date: 09/22/2010

Plaintiff: 2D09-5416 / Service Experts, LLC.

Defendant: Northside Air Conditioning & Electrical Service, Inc.

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
SERVICE EXPERTS, LLC,                                                                      )
d/b/a SERVICE EXPERTS OF TAMPA/                                                            )
ST. PETE,                                                                                  )
)
Appellant,                                                                                 )
)
v.                                                                                         )   Case No. 2D09-5416
)
NORTHSIDE AIR CONDITIONING &                                                               )
ELECTRICAL SERVICE, INC.;                                                                  )
JOHN BRIGHTWELL; ANTHONY WHITE;                                                            )
and ERIC ZINKANN,                                                                          )
)
Appellees.                                                                                 )
)
Opinion filed September 22, 2010.
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130
from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough
County; Richard A. Nielsen, Judge.
Marie A. Borland; Benjamin H. Hill, III; and
William C. Guerrant of Hill, Ward &
Henderson, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
G. Donovan Conwell, Jr., and Dineen
Pashoukos Wasylik of Conwell Kirkpatrick,
P.A., Tampa, for Appellees.
VILLANTI, Judge.
This appeal arises from the trial court's order striking the notice of
voluntary dismissal filed by Service Experts, LLC, and reinstating the action based on
the common law exception to a plaintiff's right to voluntarily dismiss the complaint, as

set forth in Ormond Beach Associates, Ltd. v. Citation Mortgage, Ltd., 835 So. 2d 292
(Fla. 5th DCA 2002).   Because the common law exception did not apply in this case and
because, as explained below, we have converted this appeal to a writ of prohibition, we
quash the trial court's order of reinstatement.
Service Experts is in the business of selling, installing, servicing, and
repairing heat, ventilation, and air cooling systems throughout Florida.   In June 2007, it
filed a lawsuit against three of its former employees and their new employer, Northside
Air Conditioning & Electrical Service, Inc. (the Northside defendants).   In a nutshell, the
complaint alleged torts committed when the former employees left Service Experts to
work for Northside Air Conditioning and asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
aiding and abetting the breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contractual
and business relationships, trade secret misappropriation, conversion, and conspiracy.
In March 2009, after almost two years of litigation, after the Northside
defendants served offers of judgment, after the close of discovery, and after the
Northside defendants moved for summary judgment, Service Experts filed a one-
sentence notice of voluntary dismissal of their complaint without prejudice.   The
Northside defendants responded by filing a motion to strike Service Experts' notice of
dismissal or for entry of a dismissal with prejudice.    The Northside defendants argued
that the notice of voluntary dismissal should be stricken because Service Experts had
perpetrated fraud on the court by filing two fraudulent affidavits in 2008.   They also
argued that Service Experts should not be allowed to dismiss the case after nearly two
years of expensive litigation based on the common law exception to a plaintiff's right to
dismiss a case as set forth in Ormond Beach.
- 2 -

In ruling on the Northside defendants' motion to strike the voluntary
dismissal, the trial court noted that it could not decide, on the record before it, whether
fraud had been perpetrated upon the court.   However, it concluded that the defendants
had "acquired substantive rights in the outcome of [the] matter by the filing of the motion
for summary judgment, by making offers of judgment and by setting forth convincing
allegations of fraud, all of which would be lost if the dismissal without prejudice were
allowed to stand."   The court then gave the parties the option of either proceeding to
trial on the merits or scheduling an evidentiary hearing to determine whether fraud had
actually been perpetrated on the court.1   It was at this juncture that Service Experts filed
its notice of appeal contending that this "option" improperly compelled it to continue
litigating after it had filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.
We briefly address this court’s jurisdiction to consider this appeal.   Service
Experts' notice of appeal was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure
9.130(a)(5).   The Northside defendants have argued that this court does not have
jurisdiction under rule 9.130(a)(5) because that rule applies to orders entered on
motions for relief from judgment filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540.
They state that their motion to strike the notice of voluntary dismissal was not made
pursuant to rule 1.540 because that rule applies to final judgments, decrees, orders, or
1Subsequent to the filing of this appeal, apparently based on the language
in the court's order, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the fraud allegations.
The court concluded that the Northside defendants had not established that Service
Experts committed a fraud on the court.   The parties have not stipulated to whether the
trial court's ruling should render moot the fraud aspect of this appeal; neither have they
raised any objection to the postappeal proceedings conducted by the trial court.   Thus,
we address the fraud issue raised on appeal only as it relates to the preappeal unruled-
upon allegations of fraud.
- 3 -

proceedings, and the voluntary dismissal they sought to set aside was not a final
judgment, decree, or order.   We agree with their procedural assessment.
However, this case involves the circumstance of a plaintiff’s notice of
voluntary dismissal of an action before a summary judgment hearing and a trial court’s
order reinstating the lawsuit in contravention of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a).
Generally, a notice of voluntary dismissal deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the
case, see Ambory v. Ambory, 442 So. 2d 1087, 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Dunkin'
Donuts Franchised Rests., LLC v. 330545 Donuts, Inc., 27 So. 3d 711, 713 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2010); Freeman v. Mintz, 523 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), but a trial court
retains jurisdiction under rule 1.540 to relieve a party " 'from the act of finality in a
narrow range of circumstances,' " none of which are applicable in this case, see Dunkin'
Donuts Franchised Rests., LLC , 27 So. 3d at 713 (quoting Miller v. Fortune Ins. Co.,
484 So. 2d 1221, 1223 (Fla. 1986)).   Based on the facts of this case, appellate
jurisdiction does not neatly fall within the confines of rule 9.130(a)(5).   Nevertheless,
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c) provides that when a party seeks an
improper remedy, "the cause shall be treated as if the proper remedy had been sought."
Here, a writ of prohibition is appropriate "to forestall an impending injury where no other
appropriate and adequate legal remedy exists and only when damage is likely to follow."
City of Ocala v. Gard, 988 So. 2d 1281, 1283 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).   It is "the appropriate
remedy to prevent an inferior tribunal from acting in excess of jurisdiction" where there
is no right to remedy the wrong at issue by direct appeal.   Id. at 1283.   Because we
conclude that the trial court’s order was in excess of its jurisdiction, we have appellate
jurisdiction to "forestall an impending injury"—forced litigation after the plaintiff's notice
- 4 -

of voluntary dismissal was filed.   As there is no other adequate remedy, we convert this
appeal to a writ of prohibition.2
We now analyze the merits of this case.   In Patterson v. Allstate Insurance
Co., 884 So. 2d 178, 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), this court summarized a party’s right to
voluntarily dismiss an action:
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a) . . . gives plaintiffs
the right to voluntarily dismiss their action at any time "before
a hearing on motion for summary judgment, or if none is
served or if the motion is denied, before retirement of the
jury in a case tried before a jury or before submission of a
nonjury case to the court."   Until the line drawn by this rule is
crossed, the plaintiff's right to a voluntary dismissal is
"absolute."   Fears v. Lunsford, 314 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1975)[.]
(Emphasis added.)   There are limited exceptions to a plaintiff's "absolute" right to take a
voluntary dismissal as a matter of right:   (1) if there is fraud on the court, (2) if the
defendant can establish the common law exception to the right of voluntary dismissal, or
(3) if the plaintiff dismisses the case at a stage which is deemed the equivalent of a
summary judgment.   Id.   The Northside defendants asserted only that either the first or
second exception applied in this case.   However, because the trial court relied solely on
the common law exception when it reinstated the complaint and did not amend its order
2Service Experts cited Miller v. Fortune Insurance Co., 484 So. 2d 1221
(Fla. 1986), as authority for this court to consider this matter on direct appeal.   In Miller,
the supreme court stated, in relevant part:   "The respondent here argues that a notice of
voluntary dismissal does not fall within rule 1.540. . .                                          . Surely, a voluntary notice of
dismissal is something, it doesn't exist in limbo.   We conclude that it is indeed a
'proceeding.' "   Id. at 1224.   Because of the marked factual differences between this
case and Miller, we are concerned that the supreme court's pronouncement in that case
is not applicable to the facts of this case.   Considering this appeal as a prohibition
avoids the necessity of extending Miller's holding and, in any event, prohibition provides
efficacious review without engaging in a case-by-case analysis.
- 5 -

after finding no fraud in fact had been committed, we begin our discussion with whether
the common law exception applied in this case.
The common law exception to a voluntary dismissal was articulated by the
Fifth District in Ormond Beach.   In that case, the parties were embroiled in litigation for
ten years.   835 So. 2d at 294.   Defendant Ormond Beach filed a summary judgment
motion and the matter was set for hearing.   Id.   Three days before the scheduled
summary judgment hearing, the plaintiff served a notice of voluntary dismissal without
prejudice.   Id.   The trial court recognized the voluntary dismissal and found the pending
summary judgment motion moot.   Id.   The Fifth District affirmed the trial court's ruling,
explaining:
[A]t any time before a hearing on a motion for summary
judgment, a party seeking affirmative relief has nearly an
absolute right to dismiss his entire action once, without a
court order, by serving a notice of dismissal.   The only
recognized common law exception to the broad scope of this
rule is in circumstances where the defendant demonstrates
serious prejudice, such as where he is entitled to receive
affirmative relief or a hearing and disposition of the case on
the merits, has acquired some substantial rights in the
cause, or where dismissal is inequitable.
835 So. 2d at 295 (citations omitted).   As in this case, the defendant in Ormond Beach
argued that it had acquired a substantial right in the litigation and that the voluntary
dismissal deprived it of the right to recover attorney's fees pursuant to its offer of
judgment.   Id. at 296.   The district court rejected that argument, concluding that the
defendant had not acquired a right to recover fees simply based on the offer of
judgment.   Id.   The court also concluded that the defendant had not acquired a
substantial right in the litigation because there was no "conclusive evidence that, absent
the voluntary dismissal, a judgment would have been entered in Ormond Beach's favor
- 6 -

on any or all of Citation Mortgage's pending claims."   Id.   Thus, Ormond Beach in fact
illustrates why, in this case, the trial court should not have stricken Service Experts'
notice of voluntary dismissal.
This court's decision in Patterson, 884 So. 2d at 178, also illustrates the
proper application of the common law exception to a voluntary dismissal.   In that case, a
lawsuit was referred to nonbinding arbitration pursuant to statute and the arbitrator
issued a decision in favor of the defendant.   Id. at 179.   Under the applicable statute, the
arbitration results became final if no party asked for trial de novo.   Id. at 180.   Neither
party timely requested a trial de novo.   Id. at 179.   Patterson then filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal without prejudice, and the defendant responded by filing a motion
for entry of a final judgment.   Id.   The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the
defendant and Patterson appealed, arguing that the trial court did not have jurisdiction
to enter the judgment because he had filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.   Id.   This
court rejected Patterson's argument.   Id.
We explained in Patterson that under the statute applicable in that case,
once the arbitrator had issued a decision, the trial court was required to enforce that
decision unless a motion for trial de novo was filed.   Id. at 180-81.   Because a motion
for trial de novo had not been filed, but for the plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal,
the defendant would have been entitled to a judgment in its favor that would have
precluded further litigation of the same subject matter.   Id. at 180.   Thus we concluded
that the case fell within the Ormond Beach common law exception to a plaintiff's right to
voluntarily dismiss its case because, by the time the plaintiff filed the notice of voluntary
dismissal, the defendant had already acquired substantial rights in the case by virtue of
- 7 -

the final arbitration decision and was entitled to disposition of the case on the merits.   Id.
at 181.
The plain language of rule 1.420 and the decisions in Patterson and
Ormond Beach lead us to the conclusion that the trial court in this case misapplied the
common law exception when it found that the mere filing of a motion for summary
judgment, offers of judgment, and "convincing"3 but, nevertheless, bare allegations of
fraud created a substantial right that precluded Service Experts from dismissing the
case.   The Northside defendants could not have acquired a substantial right in the case
simply by filing a motion for summary judgment that was never argued because rule
1.420(a) clearly allows a plaintiff to file a notice of voluntary dismissal at any time before
a hearing on a motion for summary judgment.   Also, the Northside defendants' request
for sanctions under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2009), filed in response to Service
Experts' complaint, did not vest upon them a right to have sanctions determined or
awarded against Service Experts.
Likewise, the Northside defendants' mere filing of offers of judgment did
not confer upon them a substantial right to recover fees or to have the case decided on
its merits.   See Ormond Beach, 835 So. 2d at 296 ("[T]he instant record fails to
demonstrate that Ormond Beach had acquired any 'substantial right' to recover any
offer of judgment attorney's fees.").   Unlike in Patterson, there is no evidence in this
case that, absent Service Expert's voluntary dismissal, a judgment would have been
entered in the Northside defendants' favor on any or all of Service Experts' claims.
3While the trial court referred to the allegations as "convincing," based on
the record we interpret this only to mean that the court viewed the allegations as
sufficient to merit an evidentiary hearing, but they remained bare allegations.
- 8 -

We also reject the trial court's preliminary conclusion that the Northside
defendants acquired rights in the outcome of this case by their allegations of fraud.
Fraud is a ground for striking a notice of voluntary dismissal separate and apart from the
common law exception set forth in Ormond Beach.   Thus, setting forth bare allegations
of fraud is not a basis for striking a notice of voluntary dismissal based on the Ormond
Beach common law exception to rule 1.420(a).   Notably, the trial court here did not
strike the notice of voluntary dismissal based on a determination of fraud.   Rather, the
court struck the voluntary dismissal based only on the common law exception to a
voluntary dismissal, which it found applicable because of the Northside defendants'
filings, together with their allegations of fraud.   Therefore, the portion of the trial court's
order stating that the Northside defendants acquired substantial rights in the outcome of
the case by alleging fraud erroneously mixed concepts from two separate grounds
available to strike a voluntary dismissal on the basis of fraud.
The Northside defendants also argue that they made a sufficient showing
of fraud on the court to warrant an evidentiary hearing to resolve the fraud allegations.
Only under the right circumstances can fraud allegations support a trial court's decision
to strike a plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal.   For example, in Select Builders of
Florida, Inc. v. Wong, 367 So. 2d 1089, 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), plaintiff Select
Builders filed an action to expunge an injunction from the public record and quiet title to
a piece of real estate.   The trial court granted Select Builders affirmative relief by issuing
an order expunging the document from the public record and quieting title.   Id.   It was
later alleged that Select Builders had perpetrated a fraud upon the court in obtaining the
order expunging the document.   Id.   The trial court then vacated its previous order and
- 9 -

ordered the parties to preserve the status quo until the fraud allegations were decided.
Id.   In response to the court's order, Select Builders filed a notice of voluntary dismissal
to prevent the trial court from correcting any error in expunging the document.   Id.   The
trial court struck the notice of voluntary dismissal.   Id.   The district court approved the
decision, explaining:   "The plaintiff had obtained the affirmative relief it sought, its
actions in the cause in the trial court may have been fraudulent on the court and it
certainly was within its inherent power (as an equity court) to protect its integrity."   Id. at
1091 (emphasis added).
Other courts have interpreted the fraud exception to apply where the
notice of dismissal itself is considered an attempt to commit fraud on the court.   See,
e.g., Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 790 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (concluding
that trial court was required to accept notice of voluntary dismissal where "the trial court
made no finding of fraud, and there is no basis in the record to find that the notice
constituted a fraud on the court") (emphasis added); Romar Int'l, Inc. v. Jim Rathman
Chevrolet/Cadillac, Inc., 420 So. 2d 346, 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) ("A narrow exception
[to the plaintiff's right to voluntarily dismiss his lawsuit] exists where a fraud on the court
is attempted by the filing of the voluntary dismissal . . .                                        .") (emphasis added).
This case is distinguishable from Select Builders and the other cases cited
above.   The Northside defendants' allegations of fraud were only related to Service
Experts' filing of two affidavits in response to the Northside defendants' section 57.105
motion for sanctions.   The Northside defendants contend that the two affidavits
contained false statements and were filed "to convince the court that [Service Experts]
had a good faith basis to file" the lawsuit.   Yet, the trial court never ruled on the merits of
- 10 -

the Northside defendants' section 57.105 motion for sanctions, and there is no record
evidence that the trial court relied on the two affidavits to confer upon Service Experts
any affirmative relief or benefit.   The Northside defendants rightfully acknowledged in
their reply to Service Experts' opposition to the section 57.105 motion that "the court
should not decide this motion until it has determined which party has prevailed."
Because Service Experts filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, there was no prevailing
party below.   Thus, unlike Select Builders, this is not a case where the plaintiff engaged
in fraud which resulted in affirmative relief from the court and, upon obtaining that relief,
voluntary dismissed the case to prevent the court from taking away the ill-gotten relief.
Without evidence of ill-gotten relief connected to the fraud allegations, the Northside
defendants' allegations were insufficient to support striking the notice of voluntary
dismissal on the basis of fraud.
The Northside defendants specifically assert that without the two allegedly
fraudulent affidavits there were no disputed issues of fact in the case.   That statement
understates the parties' dispute and overstates the substance of the affidavits.   While
the court denied the Northside defendants' motion for summary judgment without
discussion the same day that it struck Service Experts' notice of voluntary dismissal, it
never stated that it had relied on the two affidavits to deny the motion for summary
judgment.   Further, the limited record before us reflects a heavily contested case in
many respects.   The two affidavits at issue touched on only some aspects of the parties'
dispute.   Without making any determination on the merits, we note that while some of
the statements contained in the affidavits apparently contradict other statements in the
litigation, they did not impact all of the plaintiff's claims.   For example, the Northside
- 11 -

defendants alleged that paragraph 8 of witness Patrick Lindsay's affidavit falsely
asserted that defendant Eric Zinkann had solicited him to work for Northside Air
Conditioning.   In deposition, Mr. Lindsay testified that paragraph 8 of the affidavit was
inaccurate because it was defendant Anthony "Tony" White, not Zinkann, who had
solicited him.   This inaccuracy does not change Service Experts' allegation that the
defendants improperly solicited its employees prior to and subsequent to leaving
Service Experts' employment; it only changes the players allegedly involved.   We have
also examined the trial court's subsequent order rejecting the Northside defendants'
fraud allegations after an evidentiary hearing and that order is consistent with our
conclusions.4
Finally, the Northside defendants argue that it would be inequitable to
allow Service Experts to dismiss the action without prejudice because allowing a
voluntary dismissal would unfairly prevent the Northside defendants from clearing their
names in the business community, preclude them from obtaining attorney's fees
pursuant to their previously filed offers of judgment, and "muddy the waters" in their
malicious prosecution action against Service Experts.5   Unfortunately, these are
common consequences of litigation which are encountered by many defendants, and
rule 1.420 does not provide relief for such grievances.   For better or for worse, unless
the line drawn by rule 1.420(a) is crossed, its plain language allows a plaintiff to dismiss
its action virtually at will.   As we have noted, this line is very narrow and none of the
exceptions preventing dismissal existed in this case.   Needless to say, any attempts to
4Service Experts filed a copy of that order with this court, without objection,
as supplemental authority.
5We note that the Northside defendants did not file a counterclaim in this
action and that it appears that no malicious prosecution action has yet been filed.
- 12 -

broaden the line set forth by the rule allowing voluntary dismissal must come from the
supreme court, which is exclusively empowered to make rule changes.
While we sympathize with the Northside defendants' frustration and
dissatisfaction with the current remedy of dismissal without prejudice and with their
apparent decision to prosecute a separate malicious prosecution action against Service
Experts, the fact that the court and the defendants have devoted substantial resources
to the case is, by itself, insufficient inequity to strike a notice of voluntary dismissal.
See, e.g., Perez v. Winn-Dixie, 639 So. 2d 109, 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) ("[W]e reject
E/C's request that we recognize and engraft an exception to the general voluntary
dismissal rule, i.e., one that recognizes the inconvenience to the trier of fact and
opposing counsel which is posed by a late notice of dismissal.").   In conclusion, under
the circumstances of this case, the trial court on remand must vacate its reinstatement
order.
Petition granted, order quashed, and case remanded with directions to
dismiss.
NORTHCUTT and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
- 13 -

Download 2D09-5416.pdf