MIAMI-DADE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY, AND CITY OF MIAMI, APPELLANTS,
v.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY AND CITY OF MIAMI, 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.
Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Authority and the City of Miami appealed a summary judgment order favoring Dade County on the validity of a county ordinance abolishing WASA. The appellate court dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits, holding that the order was not final and appealable because other interrelated claims remained pending in the trial court.
The order is not final and appealable because the claim disposed of in the summary judgment ruling is not separable and distinct from the remaining pending claims, and all parties remain in the lawsuit to litigate other claims arising from the abolition of WASA.
[1] An order is not a final, appealable order if it does not constitute an end to the judicial labor in the trial court and something further remains to be done to terminate…
[2] Piecemeal appeals are generally not permitted where claims are legally interrelated, involve the same transaction, and the same parties remain in the lawsuit.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 test employed by the appellate court is whether the order appealed constitutes an end to the judicial labor in the trial court, and nothing further remains to be done to terminate the dispute between the parties directly affected”
Establishes the standard for determining whether an order is final and appealable
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDade County enacted an ordinance abolishing WASA and creating a Dade County department to operate a countywide water and sewer system. The City of Mia…
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 Dade County Home Rule Charter cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Miami Dade Water & Sewer Authority [WASA] and the City of Miami [the City] appeal the “Order Granting Dade County’s Motions for Summary Judgment and Entering Summary Final Judgment in Favor of Dade County and Denying Motions for Summary Judgment Filed by City of Miami and Metropolitan Dade County Water and Sewer Authority.” The summary judgment motions were directed to a single issue raised in Count I of the City’s multi-count complaint and in the cross-claim filed by WASA. Several claims raised in the City’s complaint remain pending. Finding that the order appealed is not a final, appealable order, we do not reach the merits of the trial court’s ruling.
The parties sought a determination as to the validity of a Dade County ordinance abolishing WASA and creating a Dade County department under the direction of the County Manager for operation of a countywide water and sewer system. In the order appealed, the trial court ruled in favor of Dade County, finding that the ordinance was properly enacted pursuant to the power vested in Dade County under the Dade County Home Rule Charter. In determining the finality of an order, judgment, or decree, the test employed by the appellate court is whether the order appealed constitutes an end to the judicial labor in the trial court, and nothing further remains to be done to terminate the dispute between the parties directly affected. S.L.T Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1974); SCI, Inc. v. Aneco Co., 410 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Generally, piecemeal appeals will not be permitted where claims are legally interrelated, involve, in substance, the same transaction, and where the same parties remain in the lawsuit. S.L.T. Warehouse Co.; SCI, Inc.; Collins v. Hunt, 404 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Cf. Fla.R. App. P. 9.110(k) (partial final judgment appealable where it disposes of entire case as to any party). An exception to this general rule appears in Mendez v. West Flagler Family Association, 303 So. 2d 1, 5 (Fla.1974):
[W]hen it is obvious that a separate and distinct cause of action is pleaded which is not interdependent with other pleaded claims, it should be appealable if dismissed with finality at trial level and not delayed of appeal because of the pendency of other claims between the parties.
In the present case, all of the counts in the original complaint filed by the City are based on intertwining and interrelated factual and legal issues. The issue raised in Count I of the City’s complaint and in WASA’s cross-claim and disposed of in the summary judgment order is not separable and distinct from the remaining, pending claims. Furthermore, all of the parties involved in this case remain in the lawsuit to litigate the pending claims for various forms of legal and equitable relief emanating from the abolition of WASA. Accord ingly, the order in question is not appealable and is hereby dismissed. See Vila v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 383 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); McClain Construction Corp. v. Roberts, 351 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (26 total)
-
Klein v. Klein, 551 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…n it. The order appealed from is clearly not a final appealable order because the judicial labor in the case has not come to an end, see SLT Warehouse v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97, 99 (Fla.1974); Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Auth. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 469 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 482 So. 2d 349 (Fla.1986); moreover, the subject order is not one of the interlocutory orders appealable under Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a). Beyond that, we decline to entertain the appeal as a petition for a writ of cert…
-
Almacenes EL Globo de Quito v. Dalbeta L.C., 181 So. 3d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…neates the appellate process invoked pursuant to rule 9.030(b)(1)(A)). For the purposes of appellate' review, an order of the circuit court is “final” if it ends all.judicial labor in the case. Miami-Dade Water, and Sewer Auth. v. Metro. Dade Cty., 469 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Rule 9.110(k)4 allows for appellate review of final orders that can be charácter- [*562] ized as “partial final judgments.” Regardless of how the order on appeal in this ease was captioned by the trial court or characterized by…
-
Northcutt v. Pathway Fin., 555 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…tionship test for a compulsory counterclaim. Neil v. South Florida Auto Painters, Inc., 397 So. 2d 1160, 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). It is intertwined and interrelated with the main claim. Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Authority v. Metropolitan Dade County, 469 So. 2d 813, 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). See generally Rudner v. Cabrera, 455 So. 2d 1093, 1094-96 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Appellant has suggested that dismissal is precluded by Mendez v. West Flagler Family Association. Mendez involved a complaint which contained t…
Previewing 3 of 26 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- S. L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Wilmott Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1974)
- Mendez v. W. Flagler Fam. Ass'n, Inc., 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974)
- McCLAIN Constr. Corp. v. Roberts, 351 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- SCI, Inc. v. Aneco Co., 410 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Vila v. The B. F. Goodrich Co., 383 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Collins v. Hunt, 404 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)