IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER SC

Transcription

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NUMBER SC TH DCA CASE NUMBER: 4D HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY and HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA CORPORATION, vs. Defendants/Petitioners, ANTHONY J. FERAYORNI, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE of PAULETTE JO FERAYORNI, Plaintiff/Respondent. / BRIEF OF RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION TO CONFLICT JURISDICTION THOMAS D. LARDIN, PA Counsel for Plaintiff/Respondent 75 N.W. 1 st Avenue, Suite 200 Delray Beach, FL Telephone: (561) Facsimile: (561)

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM PAGE NUMBER TABLE OF AUTHORITIES i STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND OF THE FACTS SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ARGUMENT The decision below on the relevant question of law is entirely consistent with the decision of this Court in Amerace Corporation v. Stallings, 823 So.2d 110 (Fla. 2002) and the Third District s decision in Ford Motor Company v. Jimenez, 870 So.2d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA Fla. 2003) on the same question of law and, consequently, the direct and express conflict necessary to support discretionary review does not exist. CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF FONT SIZE AND STYLE

3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ITEM PAGE NUMBER Amerace Corporation v. Stallings, 823 So.2d 110 (Fla. 2002)... 2, 3, 4 Ford Motor Coproration v. Jimenez, 870 So.2d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) 2, 3 Green v. Rety, 616 So,2d 433 (Fla. 1993)... 4 Hyundai Motor Company v. Ferayorni, 842 So.2d 905 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2003).. 3 Hyundai Motor Company v. Ferayorni, 876 So.2d 680 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2004). 3 Times Publishing Corporation v. Russell 615 So.2d 158 (Fla. 1993). 2, 5 Other Authority Art. V, 3(b)(3), Fla. Const i

4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS Plaintiff/Respondent accepts the Statement of the Cases and of the Facts as set forth by the Defendant/Pettioner, HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY. 1

5 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The question of law decided by the Fourth District in this case is entirely consistent with the determination of the relevant question of law decided in Amerace Corporation v. Stallings, 823 S.2d 110 (Fla. 2002) and Ford Motor Company v. Jimenez, 870 So.2d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). The question of law decided was that where an appellate court reverses and remands for entry of a money judgment on a verdict, judgment shall be entered as of the date of the verdict. Interest accrues from that date. Because the question of law decided in our case is entirely consistent with the resolution of that question of law in Amerace and Jimenez, there is no express or direct conflict. Without express and direct conflict, there is no jurisdiction for discretionary review in this Court. Times Publishing Corporation v. Russell, 615 So.2d 158 (Fla. 1993). 2

6 ARGUMENT The decision below on the relevant question of law is entirely consistent with the decision of this Court in Amerace Corporation v. Stallings, 823 So.2d 110 (Fla. 2002) and the Third District s decision in Ford Motor Company v. Jimenez, 870 So.2d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA Fla. 2003) on the same question of law and, consequently, the direct and express conflict necessary to support discretionary review does not exist. The decision of the Fourth District, in Hyundai Motor Company v. Ferayorni, 842 So.2d 905 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2003), reversed the trial court s entry of a remittitur and its resulting Order granting a new trial on damages. The Court further remanded for entry of a money judgment on the verdict. Rule 9.340(c), Fla.R.Civ.P., expressly provides that the resulting judgment shall be entered as of the date of the verdict. The decision below held that in instances where Rule 9.340(c) is applicable, interest accrues from the date of the verdict. Hyundai Motor Company v. Ferayorni, 876 So.2d 680 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2004). The Third District, in Ford Motor Company v. Jimenez, 870 So.2d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), stated the exact same rule of law. The Third District specifically stated in instances where Rule (c) applies, interest accrues from the date of the verdict. The decision in our case and the decision in Jimenez are consistent. There is no conflict at all and therefore no express and direct conflict. The same is true of the other decision alleged to be conflicting, Amerace Corporation v. Stallings, 823 So.2d 110 (Fla. 2002). In Amerace, this Court 3

7 specifically and expressly reiterated its decision in Green v. Rety, 616 So.2d 433 (Fla. 1993). The Court stated that in instances where Rule (c) applies, interest must be computed from the date of the verdict. The relevant question of law in Amerace was expressed consistently with the decision below. There is no conflict at all and certainly no express and direct conflict on the same question of law as is required to support jurisdiction in this Court. 4

8 CONCLUSSION Article 5, Section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution provides that in order for this Court to have subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of conflict, the decision under review must expressly and directly conflict with another district court decision or a decision of this Court on the same question of law. In this matter, since all three decisions in question are completely consistent with one another on the common question of law, the requisite express and direct conflict necessary to support subject matter jurisdiction in this Court is lacking. The petition for review must be dismissed. Times Publishing Company v. Russell, 615 So.2d 158 (Fla. 1993). 5

9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Brief of Respondent in Opposition to Conflict Jurisdiction has been furnished, via United States mail, to: Henry H. Wallace, Esquire, Co-Counsel for Ferayorni, associated with Wallace, Chapas & Associates, located at 2220 Grant Building, Pittsburgh, PA 15219; Wendy F. Lumish, Esquire, counsel for Hyundai, associated with Carlton Fields, PA, located at 100 SE 2 nd Street, Suite 4000, Miami, FL 33131; Joseph H. Lang, Jr., Co-counsel for Hyundai, associated with Carlton Fields, P.A., located at 4221 West Boy Scout Blvd., Tampa, FL 33607; and Franklin L. Zemel, Esq., Broad and Cassell, Counsel for Barbara Banks, Esq., One Financial Plaza, Suite 2700, Ft. Lauderdale, FL on this 24 th of September, THOMAS D. LARDIN, PA Counsel for Ferayorni 75 N.W. 1 st Avenue, Suite 200 Delray Beach, FL Telephone: (561) Facsimile: (561) By: Thomas D. Lardin, Esquire Florida Bar Number

10 CERTIFICATE OF FONT SIZE AND STYLE The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing was prepared in accordance with Fla. R. App. P (a) (2), as is generated in Times New Roman, 14pt. THOMAS D. LARDIN, ESQUIRE 7