02-3375 ATM V. CAPORICCI

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 02-3375 ATM V. CAPORICCI

Case Date: 12/10/2003

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2003

ATM LIMITED and ALI MARABIK MOHAMED, Appellants, vs. CAPORICCI FOOTWEAR LTD., CORPORATION, Appellee.

** ** ** ** ** CASE NO. 3D02-3375 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 00-17550

** ** Opinion filed December 10, 2003. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Philip Bloom, Judge. Louis C. Arslanian (Fort Lauderdale), for appellants. Frank M. Marks, for appellee. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and FLETCHER, J., and NESBITT, Senior Judge. SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge. ATM Limited and Ali Marabik Mohamed appeal, on purely

jurisdictional grounds, from a judgment entered against them after a bench trial. First, we agree that the judgment against ATM Limited is void and must be set aside because it was never made a party to the action below. Norville v. Bellsouth Advertising & Pub. Corp., 664

So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), review denied, 675 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1996). We do not, however, agree with the contention that the judgment is infirm on the ground that the trial court lost jurisdiction over the cause as a whole when it entered an order of dismissal pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070 (j) some two years before the judgment. It is true that, after the final dismissal of a claim or complaint, either with or without prejudice, the trial court is without further "case jurisdiction" and cannot render a judgment of any kind in the case. See Capital Bank v. Knuck, 537 So. 2d 697

(Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Derma Lift Salon, Inc. v. Swanko, 419 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); 1 Fla. Jur.2d Actions

Download 02-3375 ATM V. CAPORICCI.pdf