A donut franchise dispute erupted into an arbitration, then trial de novo, and then an appeal. The extensive dispute concluded... over the interpretation of civil procedure rules and the nettlesome Chapter 44.

The case is Dunkin' Donuts Franchised Restaurants, LLC v. 330545 Donuts, Inc. (Gross, Taylor, and May). Of note, the Fourth DCA last addressed Chapter 44 back in September 2009 in this case.

Several corporations and at least one individual sued as plaintiffs in a franchise dispute and won, at arbitration, $90,000. The Plaintiffs determined that they may do better at trial and sought trial de novo under F.S. 44.103(5). Note, we're presuming that the parties were sent to arbitration (or agreed) post-dispute since that is typically not an option under most pre-dispute arbitration clauses.

Leading up to trial, the individual plaintiff was dismissed via a signed stipulation of dismissal where both sides would bear their own fees and costs. The pleadings were also amended and, at trial, it was one plaintiff and one defendant.

Upon a defense verdict, the defendant sought fees under F.S. 44.103(6) against both the remaining plaintiff and the (dismissed) individual. As the Panel put it, "section 44.103(6) is directed at the miscalculation of the strength of a case after an arbitration award; the purpose of the statute is to encourage acceptance of the arbitration award, not to punish litigation misconduct."

The trial and appellate court agreed that this would not work and that fees were only assessable against the remaining plaintiff. Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(1), a voluntary dismissal removes the court's ability to enter an order (equivalent to lacking jurisdiction). Nontheless, the court could retain jurisdiction under Rule 1.540, but that jurisdiction is limited.

Because of the stipulated dismissal under Rule 1.420, the former individual plaintiff was no longer a "party." Chapter 44 involves assessing fees against a "party." Thus, the court has no jurisdiction.