JAKE AND THE FAT MAN BIKE WEEK USA, INC. AND JACOB MAZRAWI, APPELLANTS,
v.
BIKER DESIGN, INC., ERGUN RECEL, AND NIR GIST, 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.
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review an order dismissing a complaint for improper venue and failure to state a cause of action when the notice of appeal is filed more than thirty days after the rendition of the nonfinal order.
Appellants appealed an order dismissing their amended complaint for improper venue and failure to state a cause of action. The trial court ruled from …
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 Improper Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, J.
Jake and the Fat Man Bike Week, USA, Inc. and Jacob Mazrawi (collectively “Jake”) appeal an order dismissing an amended complaint for improper venue and for failure to state a cause of action without prejudice. Jake contends that the venue clause in their agreement with the appellees required that any litigation between them be brought in Orange County, Florida. We lack jurisdiction to review the order and therefore dismiss the appeal.
After a hearing, the circuit court ruled from the bench on 2 October 2003, and dismissed the complaint for improper venue and for failure to state a cause of action without prejudice. It did not enter a written order until 5 December 2003, but in the meantime Jake filed a motion for rehearing on 13 November 2003. The court denied the motion for rehearing by order entered 16 December 2003, and Jake subsequently filed a notice of appeal on 14 January 2004..
An appeal of an order concerning venue is an appealable nonfinal order. Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(A). Also, an order granting a motion to dismiss without prejudice is a nonfinal order. Jim Macon Bldg. Contractors, Inc. v. Lake County, 763 So. 2d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Allen v. Fla. Dept. of Military Affairs, 576 So. 2d 971, 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
Motions for rehearing of nonfinal orders do not toll the time for taking an appeal. Bennett v. Bennett, 645 So. 2d 32, 32 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Adlow, Inc. v. Mauda, Inc., 632 So. 2d 714, 714-15 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Manna Provisions Co. v. Blume, 417 So. 2d 832, 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Because Jake filed an appeal of a nonfi-nal order more than thirty days following its rendition, we lack jurisdiction over the order on appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
DISMISSED.
GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Filomena Ruffa v. Saftpay, Inc., 163 So. 3d 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…CA 2005). However, this Court has held that “where, as here, a civil action is governed by a specific statute which contains a more particular provision concerning the taxation of costs, the more particular provision controls.” Morales v. Rosenberg, 919 So. 2d 476, 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Unfortunately for Ruffa, section 448.08 is the more specific provision governing this unpaid wages action, and section 448.08 makes an' award of attorney’s fees and costs discretionary: “The court may award to the prevailing…
-
Fla. Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. COX, 54 So. 3d 1026 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…of liability and damages. Moreover, section 57.041, Florida Statutes, applies to all civil actions except those that are governed by specific statutes containing more particular provisions concerning the taxation of costs. See Morales v. Rosenberg, 919 So. 2d 476, 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Sections 73.091 and 73.092 [*1027] specifically relate to condemnation proceedings, including inverse condemnation proceedings. See Volusia County v. Pickens, 435 So. 2d 247, 248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Those statutes govern th…
-
SC. Read, Inc. v. Seminole Cnty. Sch. Bd., 932 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…s after the trial court’s non-final order was entered. A motion for rehearing is not authorized regarding a non-final order and thus does not toll the time for filing an [*1257] appeal. Jake and the Fat Man Bike Week USA, Inc. v. Biker Design, Inc., 919 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Deal v. Deal, 783 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). As such, this appeal is untimely as to Read and Finch. As to Tuscawilla Homeowners’ Association, Inc., the association was only a party to Count I of the complaint and, accordin…
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
- Adlow, Inc. v. Mauda, Inc., 632 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- LTC William L. Allen (RET) v. Fla. Dep't of Mil. Affairs, 576 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Neal v. State, 763 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Manna Provisions Co. v. Blume, 417 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Bennett v. Bennett, 645 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)