THE SCOTTS COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, SCOTTS-SIERRA HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, AND BOB SANTANA, A FLORIDA RESIDENT, APPELLANTS,
v.
HACIENDA LOMA LINDA, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal held that a litigant may file a cross-appeal of a non-final order being appealed under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, even though Rule 9.130 contains no explicit cross-appeal provision. The court relied on the Florida Supreme Court's reasoning in Lopez v. State that the absence of a prohibition on cross-appeals, combined with interests of justice and judicial economy, supports allowing cross-appeals in this context.
A cross-appeal of a non-final order under Rule 9.130 is permissible. The absence of an explicit prohibition against cross-appeals in Rule 9.130, coupled with the interests of justice and judicial economy, supports allowing such cross-appeals, consistent with the reasoning in Lopez v. State.
[1] A litigant may file a cross-appeal of a non-final order that is being appealed under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.
[2] The absence of explicit language authorizing cross-appeals in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 does not prohibit them.
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“The question before us is whether a litigant is authorized to file a cross-appeal of a non-final order which is being appealed under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. The answer is yes.”
This establishes the central holding of the case directly.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendants below (appellants) filed a notice of appeal of a non-final order denying their motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens und…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.110 cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motion to Dismiss Cross-Appeal
COPE, C.J.
The question before us is whether a litigant is authorized to file a cross-appeal of a non-final order which is being appealed under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. The answer is yes.
The appellants (who are defendants below) filed a notice of appeal of a non-final order denying their motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens. Such an appeal proceeds under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(A). See Four Star Resorts Bahamas, Ltd. v. Allegro Resorts Mgmt. Servs., Ltd., 734 So. 2d 576, 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
The appellee (plaintiff below) filed a notice of cross-appeal of the same order. The defendants moved to dismiss the cross-appeal, arguing that Rule 9.130 contains no specific authority for a cross-appeal. This stands in contrast to Rule 9.110, which contains a specific provision authorizing a cross-appeal on an appeal from a final judgment. See Fla. R.App. 9.110(g). Rule 9.140, governing criminal appeals, also contains a specific provision establishing a right of defense cross-appeal on a State non-final appeal. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(4). Rule 9.130 is entirely silent regarding cross-appeals.
We find dispositive the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Lopez v. State, 638 So. 2d 931 (Fla.1994). At the time Lopez was decided, there was no explicit authority for a defense cross-appeal in the context of a State non-final appeal. The court concluded that there was “nothing in the current rules which can be read to prohibit cross-appeals from interlocutory orders in criminal cases.” Id. at 932-33. The court also took the view that the interests of justice and judicial economy favored the resolution of all related issues when the State takes a non-final appeal. Id. at 933.
The same considerations militate in favor of allowing a cross-appeal during a non-final appeal under Rule 9.130. This court has previously allowed such a cross-appeal, albeit without discussing the existence or non-existence of the authority for the cross-appeal. See Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. City of Miami, 372 So. 2d 152, 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
The motion to dismiss the cross-appeal is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mojito Splash v. City of Holmes Beach, 326 So. 3d 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…e City cross-appeals, challenging the trial court's earlier orders denying the City's motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A); 9.130(g); e.g., Scotts Co. v. Hacienda Loma Linda, 942 So. 2d 899, 899-900 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (holding that an appellate court possesses jurisdiction over a cross-appeal from a nonfinal order by virtue of its jurisdiction over the order in the main appeal). We find merit in the City's first argument on cross-appea…
Authorities Cited
- Lopez v. State, 638 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1994)
- Payne v. State, 372 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Four Star Resorts Bahamas, Ltd. v. Allegro Resorts Mgmt. Servs., Ltd., 734 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)