MELVIN EUCEDA, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC. AND PACKARD CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Limitations Period cases and more on FLexlaw
Upon review of Appellant/Claimant’s response to this Court’s show cause order entered March 2, 2010, we dismiss this appeal because the order on appeal, which dismisses Claimant’s petitions for benefits without prejudice and notes the statutory limitations period to amend the petition has not yet run, is a non-final, non-appeal-able order. See Mendez v. Shoma Dev. Corp., 899 So.2d 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (“Because the order being appealed herein dismisses the petition for benefits without prejudice and contemplates the refiling of the petition ..., we dismiss this appeal as being taken from a nonfinal, nonappealable order.”); Croes v. Univ. Cmty. Hosp., 886 So.2d 1040, 1041 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“We note that as an alternative to refiling her claim, appellant could have requested the entry of a final order of dismissal with prejudice, which could then be appealed.”). Martinez v. Collier County Public School, 804 So.2d 559 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), is distinguishable because, there, it was “uncontested that Appellant’s claim would be time-barred if refiled.” See Martinez, 804 So.2d at 560.
DISMISSED.
KAHN, DAVIS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Espaillat v. Sec. First Ins. Co. (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…indispensable party.1 In the alternative, non-party Appellant requests this Court treat her appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. We dismiss the appeal as taken from a non-final, non-appealable order. See Euceda v. Se. Pers. Leasing, Inc., 33 So. 3d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Croes v. Univ. Cmty. Hosp., 886 So. 2d 1040, 1041 n.2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Mendez v. Shoma Dev. Corp., 899 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). More to the point, non-party Appellant is not a named party to the litigation below, and…
-
Jacques Amilcar v. State, 41 So. 3d 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…ida, and that Appellant supplied a Quincy street address as his address on the Articles of Incorporation for Fantasy Beauty and Nail Salon, Inc. This scant evidence was insufficient to survive a motion for judgment of acquittal. See Morgen v. State, 33 So. 3d 115, 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“Circumstantial evidence which creates nothing more than a strong suspicion that a defendant committed the crime is not sufficient to support a conviction.”). We affirm Appellant’s conviction and sentence on Count III, vac…
Authorities Cited
- Martinez v. Collier Cnty. Pub. Schs., 804 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Shauna Croes v. Univ. Cmty. Hosp. & Sentry Ins. Co., 886 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Mendez v. Shoma Dev. Corp. & Transp. Cas., 899 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)