DON ZABAWA, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
GAETON "GUY" DELLA PENNA, LEE A. SILER, ET AL., APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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 an order vacating an arbitration award and remanding for a new hearing is a non-final order and thus not immediately appealable.
[1] An order vacating an arbitration award and remanding for a new arbitration hearing is a non-final order and not appealable as a final order.
[2] The substance of an order, not its label, determines its nature for purposes of appellate jurisdiction.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant sought to confirm an arbitration award, but the lower court vacated the award as to appellees and remanded for a new arbitration. Appellant …
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 Confirmation Of Arbitration Award cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant sought to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to section 682.12, Florida Statutes (2002). Although confirming the award as to persons not involved in this appeal, the lower court vacated the award as to Appellees and remanded the cause back to the arbitration authority for a new arbitration hearing before new arbitrators.
Appellant seeks to invoke this court’s jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, section 4(b)(1), of the Florida Constitution, and rule 9.030(b)(1)(A), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, which authorize appeals from final orders. The order at issue here, however, as it relates to these Appellees, is a non-final order and is therefore not appealable on this basis. Central Florida Police Benevolent Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Orlando, 614 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); City of Fort Lauderdale v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 31, 582 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
The fact that the order is labeled “Second Amended Final Judgment” does not control. It is the substance of the order, not the label affixed to it, that determines its nature for purposes of section 4(b)(1) and rule 9.030(b)(1)(A).
Boyd v. Goff, 828 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
Appellant alternatively asks that we treat his Notice of Appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari pursuant to rule 9.030(b)(2)(A), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. As a condition precedent to invoking a district court’s certiorari jurisdiction, however, the petitioning party must establish that it has suffered an irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on direct appeal. Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc., 720 So. 2d 214, 215 (Fla.1998). Appellant’s claim of irreparable harm is the fact that he will expend time and money on an unnecessary arbitration. This is an insufficient showing of irreparable harm to justify certiorari review. See Stoever v. Vedder Homes, Inc., 697 So. 2d 1247, 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Appellees’ cross-appeal, which challenges the same order, is likewise dismissed for the same reasons.
SHARP, W„ MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Loewenstein, Inc. v. Draheim, 898 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…see, 703 So. 2d at 1069. Certiorari jurisdiction is not appropriate because Loewenstein has not suffered an irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on direct appeal. See Johnson v. Levine, 736 So. 2d 1235, 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Zabawa v. Penna, 868 So. 2d 1292, 1293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Appeal dismissed. STONE and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
-
Dep't OF Child. & Families v. Clem, 903 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…r has another remedy. See Nussbaumer v. State, 882 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (to determine if court has cer-tiorari jurisdiction, court must first decide whether petitioner has demonstrated that order creates irreparable harm); Zabawa v. Penna, 868 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (as a condition precedent to invoking certiorari jurisdiction of court, petitioner must establish it has suffered an irreparable harm). CERTIORARI DENIED. PLEUS and PALMER, JJ., concur.…
-
Mariner Health Care v. Polly Y. Griffith, 898 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…ra. Furthermore, the inconvenience and expense of litigation after an allegedly incorrect interlocutory ruling does not constitute the kind of material harm or irreparable injury for which certiorari review is available. See, e.g., Zabawa v. Penna, 868 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc. v. Lane, 855 So. 2d 1172, 1172-1173 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Sinclair, 808 So. 2d 231, 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), rev. denied, 823 So. 2d 125 (Fla.2002). In Smithers v…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc, 720 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1998)
- Boyd v. Goff, 828 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- City OF Fort Lauderdale v. Fraternal Order OF Police, 582 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Cent. Fla. Police Benevolent Ass'n, Inc. v. City OF Orlando, 614 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Hans-Juergen Stoever and Karin Stoever v. Vedder Homes, Inc., 697 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)