STEPHEN KLEIN AND KAREN KLEIN, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND KING ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 Klein appellants appealed a trial court order granting in part and denying in part motions to dismiss their negligence complaint arising from a bicycle accident on the Pinellas Trail. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order was nonfinal.
An order of dismissal with leave to amend is a nonfinal order and therefore not appealable. The proper procedure requires the appellant to request entry of a final order of dismissal with prejudice after informing the court of inability or unwillingness to amend.
[1] An order of dismissal with leave to amend is a nonfinal order and is not appealable.
[2] A separate final order that disposes of the case and is properly rendered is required for an appeal.
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“An order of dismissal with leave to amend is not appealable because it is a nonfinal order.”
Establishes the foundational rule that dismissals permitting amendment lack finality necessary for appellate review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStephen Klein was riding his bicycle on the Pinellas Trail when he veered off the road to avoid a collision with another bicyclist, fell down a steep …
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 Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellants, Stephen Klein and Karen Klein, husband and wife, challenge the trial court’s order which granted in part and denied in part the appellees’, Pinellas County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and King Engineering Associates, Inc., a Florida corporation, motions to dismiss the appellants’ third amended complaint. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
On May 31, 1995, the appellants filed a third amended complaint for damages that resulted from a bicycle accident on the Pinel-las Trail. The complaint alleged that the appellant Mr. Klein was riding his bicycle on the trail when he veered off "of the road to avoid a collision with another bicyclist. As a result, he fell down a steep ravine and sustained injuries. The complaint alleged that the appellee county was responsible for that portion of the trail where the accident occurred.
The appellees filed motions to dismiss the appellants’ third amended complaint, and after a hearing, the trial court dismissed some of the counts in the amended complaint with prejudice. However, count II (negligent construction of the trail) was dismissed without prejudice and the trial court ordered that the count could be amended if the appellants in good faith alleged that the trail at the loca tion in question was not constructed by the appellee county according to design plans.
The appellants subsequently served a notice of inability to plead in response to the trial court’s dismissal of count II. Although a final order of dismissal was not entered, a timely notice of appeal followed.
An order of dismissal with leave to amend is not appealable because it is a nonfinal order. Morgan v. Blancher, 489 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). There must be a separate final order entered which disposes of the case and which is properly rendered as defined by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(g). Ponton v. Gross, 576 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In the instant case, the proper course of conduct would have been for the appellants to have requested entry of a final order of dismissal with prejudice after informing the court that they were unable or unwilling to amend. Ponton, 576 So. 2d at 912. Since this procedure was not followed, it is therefore a nonfinal order and not appealable.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and PATTERSON, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re A.S., 909 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…rt is not completed by a non-final order that dismisses a petition or complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. See, e.g., Jim Macon Building Contractors, Inc. v. Lake County, 763 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Klein v. Pinellas County, 685 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Augustin v. Blount, Inc., 573 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); see also Carlton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 621 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Accordingly, the August 12, 2005, order was not a final order and did not mark the compl…
-
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. for Morgan Stanley ABS Cap. I Inc. Tr. 2006-HE8 v. Plageman, 133 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…er orders dismissing the complaint with leave to amend based on the improper verification. Deutsche Bank could not have appealed the court’s earlier orders when entered because they were non-final, non-appealable orders. See Klein v. Pinellas Cnty., 685 So. 2d 945, 946 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). And in its appeal of the final order, Deutsche Bank is authorized to challenge interlocutory orders “ ‘directly related to and an aspect of the final [order]’ under review.” Portis v. Seatruck, Inc., 98 So. 3d 1234, 1235 (Fl…
-
Abramowitz v. Pechter, 710 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…e trial court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to enter the order. We find that petitioners properly moved for entry of a final appealable order after declining to amend the complaint as against Pechter individually. Klein v. Pinellas County, 685 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Ponton v. Gross, 576 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Accordingly, we grant this petition for mandamus, but will withhold issuance of the actual writ on the presumption that the trial court will promptly comply with this opinion.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Alfonson Detroy Ponton and Reginald J. Williams v. Officer B.E. Gross, 576 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Morgan v. Lugene Blancher, 489 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)