DOUGLAS PEEBLES, M.D., GERRY BARAN, M.D., ALAN AST, M.D., MONTE BERNSTEIN, M.D., ROBERT CHAIKIN, M.D., KAREN CHESIRE, M.D., MICHAEL HORN, M.D., NEIL E. ROSS, M.D., GARY KARCH, M.D., AND PAUL PAVILACK, M.D., APPELLANTS,
v.
SHERIDAN HEALTHCARE, INC., MITCHELL EISENBERG, M.D., LEWIS D. GOLD, M.D., JAY A. MARTUS, ESQ., LEVEY & MARTUS, P.A., AND LEVEY, MARTUS & GILBERT, P.A., 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.
This case involves an appeal from an order denying a motion to have a specific judge hear a motion for attorney's fees. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that the order was not immediately appealable and that the issue could be raised on appeal from the final order on attorney's fees.
No, the order is not immediately appealable because it does not fall under the category of authorized motions for non-final appeals. The issue can be raised on appeal from the final order on attorney's fees.
[1] An order denying a motion to assign a different judge to hear a post-judgment motion for attorney's fees is not immediately appealable.
[2] Appeals from orders entered after a final judgment are limited to those specifically authorized by rule, and not all post-judgment orders are immediately appealable.
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“we do not construe the rule as authorizing appeals from every single order entered after final judgment.”
Establishes the court's interpretation of the rule regarding appealability of post-judgment orders.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter a jury verdict for the plaintiff, the trial judge directed a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiffs then moved to have a different judge, ra…
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 Appellate Courts cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By agreement of the parties this case was tried before retired Judge Herbert Stettin. Following a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, Judge Stettin directed a verdict in favor of defendants on post-trial motions and entered a final judgment for defendants, retaining jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees and costs. After defendants filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, plaintiffs filed a motion before Judge Brescher, the administrative judge for Broward County who supervises the retired judge’s docket, asking that Judge Stafford, who was originally the assigned judge, hear the motion for attorney’s fees, not Judge Stettin. Judge Brescher denied the motion, and plaintiffs have appealed asserting that we have jurisdiction under rule 9.130(a)(4), which authorizes non-final appeals from “orders entered after final order on authorized motions.”
This court, as appellant recognizes, does not construe the rule as authorizing appeals from every single order entered after final judgment. Winkelman v. Toll, 632 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)(dismiss-ing appeal from post-judgment order determining only entitlement to attorney’s fees, not amount).
Plaintiff argues that we should entertain this appeal because the Florida Supreme Court is presently considering whether Broward County’s present system of assigning cases to retired judges is unconstitutional. Physician’s Health Care Plans, Inc. v. Pfeifler, No. SCO12062. Plaintiffs argue that, even though they agreed that the retired judge could try the case, this would not constitute a waiver of their right to contend that it is unconstitutional for him to determine attorney’s fees and costs. We need not reach the waiver issue because we conclude, under the same rationale we applied in Winkelman, that this order is not appealable. The issue plaintiffs seek to raise in this appeal can be raised on appeal from the final order determining the motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Appeal dismissed.
GUNTHER, FARMER, and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Caufield v. Gino Cantele, 837 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 2002)…portion” of the cause, in the language of Sampson, could be interpreted as including categories of post-judgment orders that have been held un~ reviewable by appeal either as final or nonfinal orders. See, e.g., Peebles v. Sheridan Healthcare, Inc., 817 So. 2d 1002, 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (postjudgment order denying request that judge previously assigned to case hear motion for attorney’s fees not appealable as nonfinal order); Brake v. Swan, 767 So. 2d 500, 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (order setting amount of fe…
-
Zackary Edge v. Edge, 69 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…e’s then counsel of record, Roberta Fox, we, nevertheless, are compelled to dismiss the appeal sought to be taken from this order for lack of jurisdiction. See Grafman v. Grafman, 488 So. 2d 115, 118 (Fla.1986); Peebles v. Sheridan Healthcare, Inc., 817 So. 2d 1002, 1002 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); see also Little Arch Creek Props., Inc. v. Med. Facilities, 698 So. 2d 926, 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Nei ther the possibility (or even likelihood) that a party will incur additional attorney fees and costs as a consequence…
Authorities Cited
- Winkelman v. Toll, 632 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)