WILLIAM E. MORRIS AND BARBARA J. MORRIS, APPELLANT,
v.
PAINEWEBBER INCORPORATED AND ARTHUR D. DOBOSIEWICZ, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Cross Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of the appellee’s motion to dismiss and the appellants’ response thereto, as well as the appellants’ response to the Court’s order of May 19, 2003, the Court has determined that the order on appeal is not final. Specifically, because the lower tribunal’s Final Judg ment Confirming Arbitration Award indicates that the appellants’ cross-claim to the Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award remains pending, judicial labor remains, and the appeal is consequently premature. See generally Carlton v. Wal-Mart Stores, 621 So. 2d 451, 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(observing that “a final decree marks the end of judicial labor,” and applying finality test: “whether the case is disposed of by the order and whether a question remains open for judicial determination”). Accordingly, the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
ERVIN, KAHN and HAWKES, JJ„ CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elkind v. Knox, 933 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…arehouse v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1974) (order dismissing complaint with prejudice is not final if compulsory counterclaim involving same parties remains pending). The only case cited which involves a cross-claim is Morris v. Painewebber, Inc., 852 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); however, the opinion dismissing that appeal does not explain who the parties were to the claim still pending in the trial court. If, in Morris, the pending cross-claim was between the appellant and appellee, the appeal would hav…
Authorities Cited
- Pansy O. Carlton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 621 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)