22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 932a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2208STURInsurance — Personal injury protection — When medical provider filed two notices of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, whether based on mistaken belief that case had been included in global settlement or otherwise, court was divested of jurisdiction and cannot grant motion to set aside order of dismissal
MRI ASSOCIATES OF PALM HARBOR, INC., d/b/a PALM HARBOR MRI a/a/o BENJAMIN STURGIS, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 6th Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County. Case No. 12-005753-SC. February 5, 2015. Kathleen T. Hessinger, Judge. Counsel: William Moon, for Plaintiff. Kristan S. Coad, Conroy Simberg, Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONTO SET ASIDE ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MATTER having come before the Court on January 12, 2015 on Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Order of Dismissal and after reviewing the motion, the record, applicable law and after hearing argument of counsel for the parties, finds as follows:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On or about February 17, 2010, Benjamin Sturgis was allegedly involved in a motor vehicle accident. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a Personal Injury Protection (PIP) case against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company seeking payment of allegedly unpaid PIP benefits. On or about 12/26/13 and 1/2/14, Plaintiff filed Notices of Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice, pursuant to 1.420 (a)(1). Plaintiff asserts that it and its counsel mistakenly believed that the case was previously settled in a global with the Defendant. Defendant asserts that there is no record evidence of any settlement agreement and based on the voluntary dismissals without prejudice filed by Plaintiff, the Court has been divested of jurisdiction to reinstate the subject action.ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
The Court finds that the Plaintiff filed two Voluntary Dismissals without Prejudice and when it did so, whether by mistake or otherwise, the court was divested of jurisdiction or the ability to re-open the case. In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on the holdings in Randall-Eastern Ambulance Service Inc. v. Elena Vasta, 360 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1978) and MCR Funding v. CMG Funding Corp., 771 So.2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D2318d][finding that where a dismissal is achieved without an order of court pursuant to FIa.R.Civ.P. 1.420 and the parties have neither presented the settlement agreement to the judge nor obtained an order of dismissal predicated upon the same, “a party will not be able to obtain enforcement of the settlement agreement by simply filing a motion in the now-dismissed case if one of the other parties to the agreement objects. By voluntarily dismissing their suit, the litigants have removed their dispute from the judges’ consideration. And, under this scenario, the trial court may not rely on its inherent power to enforce its own orders since there is no judgment or order for the court to enforce”] As such, the filing of the voluntary dismissals by the Plaintiff in the instant case terminates the court’s case jurisdiction.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Order of Dismissal is DENIED.
