HAROLD HICKEY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF OLYMPIA PEDRAZ, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
A.D.M.E., INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LTD. D/B/A OCEANSIDE EXTENDED CARECENTER F/K/A GEM CARE CENTER, GEM OPERATIONS, INC. D/B/A GEM CARE CENTER, GEM MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS, INC., D/B/A GEM CARE CENTER, GEORGINA HERNANDEZ FACILITY AND LUZ MAGAN, 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 court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the orders dismissing only one count of a multi-count complaint were not final orders.
The appellant appealed from orders that dismissed count I of a six-count amended complaint against the appellees. The dismissed count sought damages f…
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 Adequate Remedy On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION TO DISMISS — GRANTED
PER CURIAM.
Harold Hickey, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Olympia Pedraz, appeals from two orders granting with prejudice A.D.M.E. Investment Partners, Ltd. (A.D.M.E.) and Gem Operations, Inc.’s (Gem Operations) motions to dismiss count I of Hickey’s six-count amended complaint. Counts I and II, the only two claims directed at both A.D.M.E. and Gem Operations, seek damages for the nursing home’s treatment of Olympia Pedraz, the decedent, and her resulting injuries, based on separate legal theories, namely, statutory liability under Chapter 400 of the Florida Statutes and negligence.
We lack jurisdiction to entertain this consolidated appeal. The orders under review merely grant the motions to dismiss one of the counts against A.D.M.E. and Gem Operations. As such, the orders are not final for purposes of appeal, nor do they constitute non-final orders subject to interlocutory review under rule 9.130, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. One Thousand Oaks, Inc. v. Dade Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 417 So. 2d 1135, 1136 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
Hickey has requested that, in the alternative, we treat the appeal as a petition for certiorari. However, we do not find certiorari review to be appropriate here since Hickey has an adequate remedy by appeal and is not irreparably injured by the orders under review.
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted without prejudice to Hickey’s right to seek appellate review at the conclusion of the case.
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- ONE Thousand Oaks, Inc. v. Dade Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 417 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)