VONCEIL FISHER AND TRAVEINE HOWARD, ON THEIR BEHALF, AS REPRESENTATIVES OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED LONGSHORE WORKERS, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION AND THE INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION SOUTH ATLANTIC & GULF COAST DISTRICT, 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.
Appellants, longshore workers seeking class action status, appealed a partial dismissal order that eliminated certain claims on federal preemption grounds. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding that nonfinal orders dismissing claims based on preemption do not fall within the appellable categories under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.
The nonfinal order is not appealable under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(I) because it does not determine jurisdiction of the person. Only interlocutory orders involving service of process or applicability of the long arm statute to nonresidents fall within the appealable categories of nonfinal orders.
[1] Appellate jurisdiction to review nonfinal orders is limited to categories identified in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.
[2] Nonfinal orders determining "jurisdiction of the person" are appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(I).
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The term 'jurisdiction of the person' refers to service of process or to the applicability of the long arm statute to nonresidents.”
Establishes the narrow scope of what constitutes appealable jurisdiction determinations under Rule 9.130
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVonceil Fisher and Traveine Howard, representing a class of longshore workers, filed suit against the International Longshoremen's Association. The tr…
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 Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Having considered the appellees’ Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed May 24, 2002, and the appellants’ response, filed June 12, 2002, the motion to dismiss is hereby granted and this appeal is dismissed.
The Court’s appellate jurisdiction to review nonfinal orders is limited to those categories of orders identified in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. Nonfinal orders that determine “the jurisdiction of the person” are one category of appealable nonfinal orders. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(I). “The term ‘jurisdiction of the person’ refers to service of process or to the applicability of the long arm statute to nonresidents.” Warren v. Southeastern Leisure Systems, Inc., 522 So. 2d 979, 980 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Therefore, only those interlocutory orders that determine issues involving service of process or the applicability of the long arm statute are appealable under this section of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.
The nonfinal order on appeal granted in part a motion to dismiss, and dismissed several claims on grounds of federal preemption. Such an order relates to the right of the plaintiffs to maintain their action on these claims and is not appeal-able, pursuant to Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(I) because it does not determine jurisdiction of the person. See National Lake Developments, Inc. v. Lake Tippecanoe Owners Assoc., Inc., 417 So. 2d 655 (Fla.1982); Warren, 522 So. 2d at 980.
The appellants rely on an earlier case from this Court to support their argument that the instant order is appealable. In Southwest Gulfcoast, Inc. v. Allan, 513 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), this Court allowed an appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss that raised federal preemption grounds. While the Court recognized that the order on appeal denied a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Southwest Gulfcoast, 513 So. 2d at 220, the Court found that the appeal was “perfected under rule 9.130, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, which authorizes review of the denial of the motion to dismiss only for lack of jurisdiction.” Id. at 222. There is no indication that the issue of appellate jurisdiction was raised in Southwest Gulfcoast and there is no specific discussion of the propriety of proceeding pursuant to rule 9.130, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. To the extent that Southwest Gulf-coast may be read to provide for appellate jurisdiction, it appears to be an anomaly in this district as evidenced by our more recent opinion in Warren. As Warren represents a correct statement of the law, we recede from Southwest Gulfcoast to the extent that it is inconsistent with Warren and this opinion.
ALLEN, C.J., ERVIN, BOOTH, BARFIELD, MINER, WOLF, KAHN, WEBSTER, DAVIS, BENTON, VAN NORTWICK, PADOVANO, BROWNING, LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Re-Employment Servs., Ltd. v. Nat'l Loan Acquisitions Co., 969 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…on to review the non-final order denying the motion to quash under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i), which permits review of non-final orders that determine the jurisdiction of a person. See Fisher v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n, 827 So. 2d 1096, 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Gaspar, Inc. v. Naples Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 546 So. 2d 764, 765 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Our standard of review is de novo. Nw. Aircraft Capital Corp. v. Stewart, 842 So. 2d 190, 193 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (citing Wendt v. Hor…
-
Hitt v. Homes & Land Brokers, Inc., 993 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…jurisdiction over the person is appealable. Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i). Subsumed under the general rubric of personal jurisdiction are the issues of process and service, which are Hitt’s concerns here. See Fisher v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n, 827 So. 2d 1096, 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“ ‘The term “jurisdiction of the person” refers to service of process or to the applicability of the long arm statute to nonresidents.’ ” (quoting Warren v. Se. Leisure Sys., Inc., 522 So. 2d 979, 980 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)))…
-
The Panama City Gen. P'ship v. Godfrey Panama City Inv., 109 So. 3d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…l jurisdiction over the defendant upon the court. Interlocutory orders that determine issues involving service of process are appealable under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i), Florida Rules [*294] of Appellate Procedure. Fisher v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n, 827 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). On the other hand, the order denying the defendant’s motion for rehearing or reconsideration is not an appealable order. While a trial court has the authority upon a motion for rehearing to “reopen the judgment if one has been…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nat'l Lake Developments, Inc. v. Lake Tippecanoe Owners Ass'n, Inc., 417 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1982)
- Warren v. Se. Leisure Sys., Inc., 522 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Sw. Gulfcoast, Inc. v. Allan, 513 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)