Case Name: AMERICAN WALL SYSTEMS, INC., etc., Petitioner, v. MADISON INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., etc., et al., Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2006-10-05
Citations: 944 So. 2d 172
Docket Number: No. SC05-868
Parties: AMERICAN WALL SYSTEMS, INC., etc., Petitioner, v. MADISON INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., etc., et al., Respondents.
Judges: LEWIS, C.J., and ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and QUINCE, JJ„ concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 944
Pages: 172–176

Head Matter:
AMERICAN WALL SYSTEMS, INC., etc., Petitioner, v. MADISON INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., etc., et al., Respondents.
No. SC05-868.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Oct. 5, 2006.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 29, 2006.
Loreen I. Kreizinger and Justine S. An-agnos of Loreen I. Kreizinger, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Petitioners.
W. Bruce Del Valle of Del Valle Law Group, P.A., Kissimmee, FL, Stephen C. Chumbris and Gerald D. Davis of Holland and Knight, LLP, St. Petersburg, FL, for Respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We have for review American Wall Systems, Inc. v. Madison International Group, Inc., 898 So.2d 111 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), which expressly and directly conflicts with this Court's decision in Wilson v. Salamon, 923 So.2d 363 (Fla.2005). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
This Court entered an order accepting jurisdiction and granting review of the district court's decision on November 30, 2005, after the petitioner sought review claiming that the decision conflicted with other district court decisions. While the petition for review was pending this Court issued its decision in Wilson, which is now final. In Wilson we expressly receded from our prior decision in Gulf Appliance Distributors, Inc. v. Long, 53 So.2d 706 (Fla.1951), a decision expressly relied upon by the district court in American Wall as authority for affirming a trial court order dismissing the petitioner's action for failure to prosecute. Because we have receded from Gulf Appliance, we conclude that the district court decision should be quashed.
By our order of November 30, 2005, we have determined that we have jurisdiction although we did not expressly set out the basis for jurisdiction in the order. Having already accepted jurisdiction, we further determine that it would be inappropriate to discharge jurisdiction for the additional reason that the case was pending review in this Court when we decided Wilson.
On the authority of our decision in Wilson, the decision under review is quashed, and this matter is remanded to the Fifth District Court of Appeal for reconsideration upon application of this Court's decision in Wilson.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS, C.J., and ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and QUINCE, JJ" concur.
CANTERO, J., dissents with an opinion, in which WELLS and BELL, JJ., concur.
BELL, J., dissents with an opinion.