AGERE SYSTEMS INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ALL AMERICAN CRATING, INC., ET AL., APPELLEE
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.
A motion for reconsideration of a non-final order does not toll the time to appeal that order, and the denial of such a motion is not independently appealable.
Appellant sought review of an order denying a motion for reconsideration of an earlier non-final order. The underlying order was rendered on November …
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 Rendition Of Order cases and more on FLexlaw
MONACO, J.
The appellant, Agere Systems, Inc., seeks review of a non-final order denying a motion for reconsideration of an earlier order. A motion for reconsideration does not toll the time to file an appeal from a non-final order. See Canfield v. Cántele, 837 So. 2d 371, 376, n. 3 (Fla.2002). The reason, of course, is that motions addressed to non-final orders are not “authorized” within the meaning of Rule 9.020(h), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, and thus do not postpone rendition. See Deal v. Deal, 783 So. 2d 319, 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Coldwell Banker Commercial v. Wightman, 649 So. 2d 346, 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
In the present case the underlying non-final order was rendered on November 4, 2005. The underlying order was an appealable non-final order pursuant to Rule 9.130, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, but review of it had to be initiated by the filing of a notice of appeal within thirty days of November 4, 2005. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(b). The order denying the motion for reconsideration was entered on December 19, 2005. The appeal to this court was filed on January 11, 2006, well in excess of the allowable time.
Moreover, an order that simply denies a motion for reconsideration or rehearing of an underlying non-final order, such as the one sought to be appealed in this case, is not in itself an appealable order. See Richardson v. Watson, 611 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Since the notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days from the date of the underlying order for which reconsideration was sought, we do not have jurisdiction to review this matter. Accordingly, in the absence of jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.
DISMISSED.
PLEUS, C.J. and SHARP, W., J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
The Panama City Gen. P'ship v. Godfrey Panama City Inv., 109 So. 3d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…al orders are only appealable if they are included in one of the categories listed in rule 9.130. Nat’l Lake Devs., Inc. v. Lake Tippecanoe Owners Ass’n, Inc., 417 So. 2d 655 (Fla.1982). As stated in Agere Systems Inc. v. All American Crating, Inc., 931 So. 2d 244, 245 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), “an order that simply denies a motion for reconsideration or rehearing of an underlying non-final order ... is not in itself an appealable order.” Likewise, an order denying a motion to set aside a clerk’s default is not a…1 / 2
-
Wells Fargo Bank v. Sawh, 194 So. 3d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…for directed verdict, for arrest of judgment, to challenge the verdict, to correct a sentence or order of probation ..., or to vacate an order based upon the recommendations of a hearing officer”); see also Agere Sys. Inc. v. All Am. Crating, Inc., 931 So. 2d 244, 244-45 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (confirming that "motions [for rehearing or reconsideration] addressed to non-final orders are not ‘authorized’ within the meaning of Rule 9.020[i] ... and thus do not postpone rendition,” and that "an order that simply d…
-
Samara v. Tenet Fla. Physician Servs., LLC, 317 So. 3d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Caufield v. Gino Cantele, 837 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 2002)
- Deal v. Deal, 783 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Richardson v. Watson, 611 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Rose v. State, 649 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)