ORLANDO JIMENEZ AND MAGALY JIMENEZ, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
COMMUNITY ASPHALT CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, CONDOTTE AMERICA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND RINKER MATERIALS OF FLORIDA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal addresses its jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal of dismissed claims for spoliation of evidence and statutory breach of duty to cooperate, while an intentional misconduct exception claim remains pending in trial court. The court holds it has jurisdiction because the dismissed claims involve separate and distinct causes of action not interdependent with the pending tort claim.
The court has jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal because the dismissed claims constitute separate and distinct causes of action that are not interdependent with the pending intentional misconduct claim. The spoliation and cooperation claims involve conduct occurring after the accident, while the pending claim involves conduct occurring before the accident.
[1] An order disposing of a separate and distinct cause of action, which is not interdependent with other claims still pending, is immediately appealable.
[2] A claim for spoliation of evidence and a claim for violation of an employer's statutory duty to cooperate with an employee's claims against third-party tortfeasors are se…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Under Mendez v. West Flagler Family Ass'n, 303 So.2d 1 (Fla.1974), an order disposing of a separate and distinct cause of action, which is not interdependent with other claims still pending, is immediately appealable.”
Establishes the governing legal standard for determining appealability of interlocutory orders dismissing certain claims.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Jimenez was injured when a truck owned by his employer Rinker overturned while he was driving it. Jimenez sued his employer and other defend…
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 Spoliation Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant Jimenez was injured when a truck, which was owned by his employer, Rinker, overturned while he was driving it. He brought this suit against his employer, Rinker, and other defendants. His claims against Rinker included the intentional misconduct exception to worker’s compensation immunity, a claim which remains pending in the trial court. The court dismissed additional claims Jimenez alleged against Rinker based on spoliation of evidence and a violation of section 440.39(7), Florida Statutes (2002), which requires an employer to cooperate with the employee in the prosecution of claims against third party tortfeasors.
The trial court dismissed with prejudice the spoliation and breach of duty to cooperate claims. The question before us is whether the dismissal of the counts based on spoliation or the statutory violation are appealable, while the tort claim is still pending in the trial court.
Under Mendez v. West Flagler Family Ass’n, 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1974), an order disposing of a separate and distinct cause of action, which is not interdependent with other claims still pending, is immediately appealable. In Mendez there were separate counts alleged against an insurer, one for fraud arising from the procurement and issuance of a policy, and another for breach of the insurance contract. In holding that the claims were separate and distinct, the Florida Supreme Court pointed out that the fraud claim had to do with the issuance of the policy and was unrelated to the subsequent breach of the policy after it was issued. Mendez required that the initial order disposing of a claim had to be appealed at the time; however, rule 9.110(k), which was passed in response to Mendez, allows the appeal to be taken immediately or at the end of the entire case. Pellegrino v. Horwitz, 642 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
Because the claim still pending below involves a breach of duty by the employer occurring before the truck accident occurred, and the dismissed claims involved different conduct which occurred after the accident, we accordingly agree with appellant that under Mendez we have jurisdiction of this appeal.
TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harrison v. J.P.A. Enters., L.L.C., 51 So. 3d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…d where claims are interrelated and involve the same transaction and the same parties remain in the suit.” Webb, 304 So. 2d at 99. The counts set out in the amended complaint in the present case are interrelated. See Jimenez v. Cmty. Asphalt Corp., 947 So. 2d 532, 532-33 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (stating that an order is not immediately appealable where, even though it disposes of a separate and distinct cause of action, other, interdependent claims remain pending); Pellegrino v. Horwitz, 642 So. 2d 124, 126-27 (…
-
Est. of Joanne Rocks & Rolly Marine Serv., Inc. v. McLAUGHLIN Eng'g Co., 49 So. 3d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…endent with other pending claims not appealable); Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(k) (partial final judgments reviewable either on appeal from the partial final judgment or on appeal from the final judgment in the entire case); Jimenez v. Cmty. Asphalt Corp., 947 So. 2d 532, 532-33 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (under Mendez order disposing of separate and distinct cause of action interdependent with other claims still pending not immediately appealable); Pellegrino v. Horwitz, 642 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (final orders di…
Authorities Cited
- Mendez v. W. Flagler Fam. Ass'n, Inc., 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974)
- Pellegrino v. Jeffrey Horwitz, M.D., 642 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)