LUIS COSTA, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
GARY DOEHLA, 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.
Court dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court's order striking affirmative defenses and granting partial summary judgment was not a final judgment and did not fall within the limited categories of appealable non-final orders.
A trial court order striking affirmative defenses and granting partial summary judgment is not appealable when the order does not constitute a final judgment and does not fall within the limited categories of appealable non-final orders.
[1] An order striking affirmative defenses and granting partial summary judgment is not appealable when the order does not constitute a final judgment and the amount of the p…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Because no final judgment has been entered and the order at issue does not fall within any of the limited categories of appealable non-final orders, we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.”
Court's explanation for dismissing the appeal due to lack of jurisdiction.
Defendants appealed an order granting plaintiffs' motion to strike affirmative defenses or for judgment on the pleadings or alternatively for summary …
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
Appellants, the defendants below, seek review of an “Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses or for Judgment on the Pleadings or alternatively for summary Judgment” and a subsequent order denying their motion for rehearing. Because we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal, we are compelled to dismiss the appeal. See Dixon v. Allstate Ins. Co., 609 So.2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Northcutt v. Pathway Fin., 555 So.2d 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Smith v. Glisson, 468 So.2d 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
Significantly, the order on appeal concludes with the following language:
18. Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(d) provides that the Court should specify and narrow the issues for trial where full and final judgment is not yet appropriate. Accordingly, this Court rules that:
a. The affirmative defenses do not bar Plaintiffs claim and they are hereby stricken and alternatively partial summary judgment on all of the remaining defenses in favor of Doehla is appropriate;
b. Plaintiff Gary Doehla has a valid judgment lien against The Property;
c. The amount of Plaintiffs claim has yet to be determined and will be determined by subsequent proceedings.
Because no final judgment has been entered and the order at issue does not fall within any of the limited categories of appealable non-final orders, we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed without prejudice.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dixon v. Allstate Ins. Co., 609 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Smith v. Glisson, 468 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)