Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision To whatever extent, if any, Lentino’s counter-counterclaim can be considered to have reasserted any of her nonsuited claims, it did not seek to reassert them in her capacity as an original plaintiff in the case, but only as a counter-plaintiff. In that her non-suit did not terminate the entire case and her nonsuited claims, if reasserted at all, were not sought to be restored to their previous status, the court finds no rationale or authority for subjecting her counter-counterclaim to a requirement to file a motion to reinstate, as contrasted from the rules generally governing the filing of a counterclaim. FACTS:In 1999, Marta Lentino and eight others sued Frost National Bank for wrongfully obtaining post-judgment remedies against the property of persons and entities that were not parties or judgment debtors in the underlying case. Frost filed a counterclaim to recover attorneys’ fees from what it called a groundless pleading. Dov Avni Kaminetzky, an attorney for some of the plaintiffs, intervened in February 2001. On June 1, 2001, the trial court granted Lentino’s motion to non-suit her claims against Frosty. Prior to this ruling, Lentino filed a counter-counterclaim in response to Frost’s counterclaim, asserting claims based on facts similar to those she non-suited. By February 2002, Frost non-suited its counterclaim and, and the trial court also struck Kaminetzky’s intervention. Lentino and Kaminetzky each appeal various trial court orders during the litigation. HOLDING:Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court rules it does not have a final judgment before it to review. The trial court’s rulings have disposed of discrete portions of the case, but none of those: “1. unequivocally expresses an intent to finally dispose of the case; or 2. effects an actual disposition of all parties and claims remaining in the case at the time the order was signed.” None of the orders purports to dispose of any claims except for the ones immediately before the court. The court adds that Lentino’s counter-counterclaim is still in effect. If Frost had not filed a counterclaim, Lentino’s non-suit would have dismissed the entire lawsuit and she would have had to file a motion to reinstate. However, Frost’s counterclaim was pending when Lentino non-suited her first set of claims, and Lentino’s counter-counterclaim did not seek to reassert her status as the original plaintiff. The court thus rules Lentino did not need to file a motion to reinstate. OPINION:Edelman, J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.