MENTHIA FAULK, GERALD PERRITT, AND WILLIE SKINNER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS CLASS REPRESENTATIVES, APPELLANTS,
v.
AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC., APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
Appellants claim the trial court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion to certify class action. This court has jurisdiction. Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(6). We affirm. However, Appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in denying their motion for leave to amend their complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In this interlocutory appeal, the court lacks jurisdiction to review rulings of orders other than those listed in rule 9.130(a). See, e.g., Consultants & Designers v. Brown, 677 So. 2d 915, 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); RD & G Leasing, Inc. v. Stebnicki, 626 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Supal v. Pelot, 469 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
BOOTH, WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Traveler v. Steiner Transocean Ltd., 895 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…held that an order denying a motion to amend a complaint is not a final order, and thus, the order is not immediately appealable. Hochstadt v. Sanctuary Homeowners Ass’n, 882 So. 2d 1094, 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Faulk v. Air Prods. & Chems., Inc., 798 So. 2d 820, 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Moreover, even if Traveler had filed a petition for writ of certiorari, this court would still be without jurisdiction. Hawaiian Inn of Daytona Beach, Inc. v. Snead Constr. Corp., 393 So. 2d 1201, 1202 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981);…
-
Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. Timeshares Direct, Inc., 123 So. 3d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…isdiction to review by non-final appeal, that part of the summary final judgment that dismissed Wyndham’s claim for FDUTPA damages. See Suggs v. Sw. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 953 So. 2d 699, 700 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Faulk v. Air Prods. & Chems., Inc., 798 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Supal v. Pelot, 469 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The procedural limitations imposed by the rules do not permit review of “tag along” orders contained within reviewable non-final orders. See Chester v. Hendler, 428 So. 2d 730,…
-
Suggs v. Sw. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 953 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…an extraordinary writ pursuant to rule 9.100. Thus, we do not have jurisdiction to review by non-final appeal that part of the order that remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing before the District. See Faulk v. Air Products & Chemicals, Inc., 798 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Supal v. Pelot, 469 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The procedural limitations imposed by the rules do not permit review of “tag along” orders contained within reviewable non-final orders. See RD & G Leasing, Inc. v. Stebnicki,…
Authorities Cited
- RD & G Leasing, Inc. v. Stebnicki, 626 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Giokas v. State, 469 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Consultants & Designers & Cigna Cos. v. Brown, 677 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)