RICHARD P. NIESZ, APPELLANT,
v.
R. P. MORGAN BUILDING, CO., INC., ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal addressed whether certain trial court orders dismissing a party and claims were final and appealable. The court held that while most of the challenged orders were non-final and non-appealable, the order dismissing the plaintiff individually as a party was final and appealable because it concluded all issues between him and the other parties.
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. While most provisions of the three orders were non-final and non-appealable, the order dismissing Richard P. Niesz individually as a party and dismissing all his individual claims was final and appealable because it concluded all issues between him and the other parties and constituted an end of the judicial labor relating to him.
[1] An order dismissing a party individually from a cause of action is a final and appealable order because it concludes all issues between that party and the others, ending…
[2] Orders denying a petition for reconsideration and granting a motion to strike pleadings are generally non-final and non-appealable.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The order dismissing Richard P. Niesz, individually, is final because it concludes all issues between him and the other parties and constitutes an end of the judicial labor and the cause relating to him, leaving nothing further to be done.”
The court's holding on what makes an order dismissing a party final and appealable—it must conclude all issues between that party and others and constitute an end of judicial labor.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court entered an order on December 31, 1980, that (1) denied a petition for reconsideration, (2) granted a motion to strike certain pleading…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rendition Of Order cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
By order dated December 31, 1980, the trial court (1) denied a certain petition for reconsideration, (2) granted a motion to strike certain pleadings, and (3) dismissed the plaintiff Richard P. Niesz, individually as a party to the cause and dismissed all claims asserted by him as an individual party plaintiff. On January 12, 1981, the trial court entered an order scheduling a non-jury trial. Appellant’s belated objection to the order of December 31, 1980 (as proposed by appellees’ counsel) was denied by order entered January 14, 1981.
On February 2, 1981, appellant filed a notice of appeal1 of these three orders. Appellee Dostie Homes, Inc., moves this court to dismiss the appeal claiming all three are non-final orders and non-appeala-ble under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3). Appellant says the orders are final pointing out that the orders do not merely dismiss a cause but dismiss him as a party.
We agree with appellee that all portions of all three orders are non-final and non-appealable except Paragraph 3 of the order entered December 31, 1980, dismissing appellant Richard P. Niesz individually as a party and dismissing all claims so asserted by him in this cause. As to that provision we must agree with appellant. The order dismissing Richard P. Niesz, individually, is final because it concludes all issues between him and the other parties and constitutes an end of the judicial labor and the cause relating to him, leaving nothing further to be done.2
The motion to dismiss is granted except as to the provisions of Paragraph 3 of the order dated December 31, 1980, and as to that provision the motion to dismiss is denied.
GRANTED in part; DENIED in part.
DAUKSCH, C. J. and ORFINGER, J., concur. . We have used the date of the original notice of appeal notwithstanding that appellant was required to file an amended notice because of noncompliance with the Florida Rules of Appel late Procedure. We also note that in the notice of appeal appellant states that the order of the trial court dated December 31, 1980, was “rendered” on that date. If that was correct this appeal would have to be dismissed for failure of the appellant to commence the appeal within thirty days of rendition of the order to be reviewed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(b).
However, we have ascertained from the trial court record that the order dated December 31, 1980, was not filed by the clerk until January 5, 1981, and, therefore, was not rendered within the meaning of Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.110(b) and 9.020(g) until that date.
. See, e. g., Dustin v. Latzko, 155 Fla. 824, 21 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1945); Logan v. Flood, 346 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Berkan v. Brown, 231 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); and McMullen v. McMullen, 145 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962), cited in Haddad, Partial ‘Final’ Judgments, The Fla.B.J., April 1979, at 204.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Edwards v. Landsman, 51 So. 3d 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). In this case, however, the dismissal of the third-party conversion complaint left no pending claims against Landsman such that its dismissal was a final order as to her and was appealable. See Niesz v. R.P. Morgan Bldg., Co., 401 So. 2d 822, 823 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).3 A trial court’s order granting a motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo. See Gomez v. Fradin, 41 So. 3d 1068, 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). “In reviewing an order granting a motion to dismiss, this court’s ‘gaze is limited to…
-
Aagaard-Juergensen, Inc. v. Margott Lettelier, 540 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…than all defendants is final and appealable as to the parties discharged. Robert Granoff Corp. v. United First Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n of Sarasota, Fla., 424 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 5th [*225] DCA 1983); Niesz v. R.P. Morgan Building Company, Inc., 401 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). . We do not suggest that this is a necessary conclusion, but only that this is a permissible conclusion which could be drawn from the admitted facts.…
-
Kirker v. Orange Cnty. & Shashi B. Gore, M.D., 519 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur. . Orlando Regional Medical Center is a defendant as well, but was not dismissed. We have jurisdiction of the appeal because the dismissal is final as to Gore and Orange County. See Niesz v. R.P. Morgan Building Co., 401 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). . This statute was held to be constitutional in State v. Powell, 497 So. 2d 1188 (Fla.1986), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 2202, 95 L.Ed.2d 856 (1987). Although Powell recognizes the rule that a decedent’s next of kin has no…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McMULLEN v. McMULLEN, 145 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Dustin v. Latzko, 155 Fla. 824 (Fla. 1945)
- Berkan v. Brown, 231 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Logan v. Flood, 346 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)