The Week In Torts – Cases from September 29, 2023
Just move it don’t lose it
FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY
VOLUME 48, NUMBER 39
CASES FROM THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 29, 2023
WHEN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN, THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD TRANSFER THE CASE, INSTEAD OF DISMISSING IT FOR IMPROPER VENUE
Salazar v. Premier Air Center, LLC., 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1873 (Fla. 3rd DCA Sep. 20, 2023):
When a party successfully challenges venue with a motion to dismiss (because venue is more appropriate in another county), the trial court should rule to transfer the case, rather than dismissing it to allow the plaintiff to refile. This rule applies especially when the trial court’s dismissal would result in a dismissal with prejudice because the statute of limitations has already run.
SUPREME COURTS AMENDS RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
IN RE: Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.215,
48 Fla. L. Weekly S194 (Fla. Sep. 28, 2023):
The court changed some of the language of Rule 2.215 to make it more clearly “mandatory.” It also amended Rule 2.215 (e)(4)(f) to ensure that every Judge’s individual and divisional practices and procedures are published on the Circuit’s website.
The Rule also states that no Judge or division may establish a practice or procedure that requires attorneys or parties to communicate with the court solely by written letter, nor may they establish a practice or procedure that contradicts established rules or procedures.
TRIAL COURT ERRED BY COMPELLING ARBITRATION OF PLAINTTIF’S CLAIMS BASED ON FINDING THAT PLAINITFF WAS BOUND TO AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE CONTAINED IN AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN A NON-PARTY ASSIGNOR AND DEFENDANT – – BASED ON THE COMPETING AFFIDAVITS IN THE RECORD, TRIAL COURT HAD TO CONDUCT AN EVIDENTARY HEARING TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES
Factor Brokers, Inc. v. J&C Enterprises, Inc., 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1874 (Fla. 3rd DCA Sep. 20, 2023):
The trial court concluded that despite the lack of any express written agreement to arbitrate between the parties, the plaintiff was still bound to arbitrate, because the plaintiff was an assignee of a non-party, and the agreement between the non-party and the defendant contained an arbitration clause.
However, the parties presented the trial court with dueling affidavits and differing accounts as to the existence of any assignment of the agreement.
Because the trial court did not resolve the disputed factual issues necessary to determine the applicability of the agreement, the court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.