NATIONAL POWERBOAT ASSOCIATION, INC., A/K/A N.P.B.A., APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH CALABRO, APPELLEE
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 National Powerboat Association appeals an order denying its motion to quash service and dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. The court affirms the order regarding proper service while dismissing the appeal of the motion to dismiss ruling as non-final and nonappealable.
The court affirms the portion of the order determining that plaintiff properly served defendant under § 48.161(1), Fla. Stat. (1993). The court dismisses the appeal from the portion of the order denying the motion to dismiss, holding that such an order is non-final and nonappealable.
[1] An order denying a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(i) is a non-final, non-appealable order.
[2] Service of process can be proper under § 48.161(1), Fla. …
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“An order denying a motion to dismiss based on that rule is a non-final, nonappealable order.”
Establishes the central holding that Rule 1.070(i) motion to dismiss denials are not appealable as final orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe National Powerboat Association (defendant/appellant) was served in a civil action brought by Joseph Calabro (plaintiff/appellee). The defendant mo…
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 Non-Final, Non-Appealable Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals an order which denies both its motion to quash service and to dismiss plaintiffs complaint.
We affirm the order insofar as it determines that plaintiff properly served defendant. § 48.161(1), Fla. Stat. (1993).
We dismiss the appeal from that portion of the order which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(i).
An order denying a motion to dismiss based on that rule is a non-final, nonappealable order. Hicks v. City of Hialeah, 647 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Polo v. Polo, 643 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), review dismissed, 651 So. 2d 1195 (Fla.1995); RD & G Leasing, Inc. v. Stebnicki 626 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Rosenthal v. Watkins, 623 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Honorat v. Genova, 579 So .2d 286, 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
Accord Khandjian v. Compagnie Financiere Mediterranee Cofimed, S.A., 619 So. 2d 348, 349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
Contra Sheriff of Brevard County v. Lampman-Prusky, 634 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Comisky v. Rosen Management Serv., Inc., 630 So. 2d 628, 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (en banc); Austin v. Gaylord, 603 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
Defendant’s reliance on Gondal v. Martinez, 606 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), is misplaced. In Gondal, the trial court’s personal jurisdiction over defendant was the issue before this court; the language concerning Rule 1.070(j) was clearly dicta. See Khandjian, 619 So. 2d at 349; Comisky, 630 So. 2d at 631 (Polen, J., dissenting).
Accordingly, we affirm the order denying the motion to quash service and dismiss the appeal from the order denying the motion to dismiss.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part, and cause remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- RD & G Leasing, Inc. v. Stebnicki, 626 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Berge O. Khandjian and Tuula Khandjian v. Compagnie Financiere Mediterranee Cofimed, S.A., 619 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Comisky v. Rosen Mgmt. Serv., Inc., 630 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Austin v. Gaylord, 603 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Polo v. Marcela Polo, 643 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Thair Gondal v. Martinez, 606 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Honorat v. Genova, 579 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Hicks v. The City OF Hialeah, 647 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Hannah v. State, 623 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Vladimir Rosenthal, M.D. v. Watkins, 623 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)