ARMANDO C. SANTANA, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, ETC., ET AL., 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.
Santana appealed the trial court's dismissal of two counts of his six-count complaint against Florida International University for denial of law school admission. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as premature because it was taken from a nonfinal order, since other related counts remained pending in the lower court.
The order is not final and appealable because it does not dispose of all issues in the case; piecemeal appeals from nonfinal orders are not permitted where claims are interrelated, involve the same transaction, and the same parties remain in the suit.
[1] An appeal from an order dismissing some but not all counts of a multi-count complaint is generally not permitted where the remaining claims are interrelated and involve t…
[2] An order is considered final and appealable only when it concludes the judicial labor in a cause and nothing further remains to be done by the court to terminate the acti…
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 intelligence“Piecemeal appeals from nonfinal orders are not permitted where "claims are interrelated and involve the same transaction and the same parties remain in the suit."”
Establishes the foundational rule that interrelated claims involving the same parties cannot support piecemeal appeals from nonfinal orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSantana filed suit against FIU seeking declaratory and injunctive relief after FIU denied his application to law school. The trial court dismissed cou…
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 Appealability Of Non-Final Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
SUAREZ, J.
Armando C. Santana (“Santana”) appeals the trial court’s order dismissing counts one and two of his six-count second amended complaint with prejudice. We dismiss this appeal and do not reach the merits as it is taken from a nonfinal order. Santana filed suit against the Florida International University (“FIU”) for declaratory and injunctive relief after it denied his application to law school. The court dismissed, with prejudice, Counts I and II which allege that he was denied admission based on his membership in a protected class, and that the rejection violated his rights under the education clause of the Florida Constitution. The court dismissed Santana’s four remaining counts with leave to amend. The action remains pending in the lower court. We dismiss this appeal because it was taken from a nonfinal non-appealable order. Piecemeal appeals from nonfinal orders are not permitted where “claims are interrelated and involve the same transaction and the same parties remain in the suit.” S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97, 99 (Fla.1974).
Whether an order is final and appealable depends upon “whether the order in question constitutes an end to the judicial labor in the cause, and nothing further remains to be done by the court to effectuate a termination of the cause as between the parties directly affected ....” Id. That is, an appealable final order disposes of all the issues in the case.
Here, Santana attempts to appeal the dismissal of two counts of a six-count complaint. Although he bases each count on different legal theories, they all relate to FIU’s rejection of his law school application, they all involve the same parties— Santana and the law school — and the action is still pending between the same parties in the court below.
Therefore, the order is not final, the appeal is premature and would result in piecemeal appeals. S.L.T. Warehouse, 304 So. 2d at 97 (dismissing the appeal of the trial court’s dismissal of a counterclaim where the parties remained in the suit and claims were still pending in the trial court); Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Auth. v. Metro. Dade County, 469 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (dismissing the appeal of an order granting summary judgment on one count of a mul-ti-count complaint where several other claims relating to the same parties and issues remained pending).
Accordingly, the order in question is not appealable and is hereby dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brook Anderson v. Ira Epstein, 202 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…unt VI arises out of the same facts giving rise to Counts I through V. Because Count VI remains pending below, Anderson’s appeal of the dismissal of Counts I, III, IV and V concerns a non-final, non-appealable order. See Santana v. Fla. Int’l Univ., 922 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Perry v. Schlumbrecht, 724 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Biasetti v. Palm Beach Blood Bank, Inc., 654 So. 2d 237, 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Accordingly, we dismiss Anderson’s appeal with regard to the Association.1 B. Dismissal…
-
Atrium Med. Corp. v. MSP Recovery Claims, 367 So. 3d 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…ether the order in question constitutes an end to the judicial labor in the cause, and nothing further remains to be done by the court to effectuate a termination of the cause as between the parties directly affected.”); Santana v. Fla. Int’l Univ., 922 So. 2d 242, 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“That is, an appealable final order disposes of all the issues in the case.”). Moreover, it is well- established that an order which merely grants summary judgment, without more, is only appealable as a final order when no…
-
Glenn v. Quintana (11th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2009)
Authorities Cited
- S. L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Wilmott Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1974)
- Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Auth. v. Metro. Dade Cnty. & City of Miami, 469 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)