JAY LIEBMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICE, ET. AL., 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 court affirmed the order quashing service of process on an unnamed defendant and dismissed the appeal of non-final orders granting dismissal without prejudice.
Appellant sued multiple defendants alleging a conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights. He sought review of orders granting motions to dismiss …
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 Conspiracy To Deprive Constitutional Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Jay Liebman seeks review by appeal of three separate orders: (1) two orders granting two different defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint without prejudice to amend, and one order granting a third defendant’s motion to quash service of process. The complaint alleged that twenty-eight defendants engaged in a conspiracy to violate Appellant’s constitutional rights. Liebman’s complaint named sixteen individuals and entities as defendants, and twelve “unknown John Does” as additional defendants.
We affirm the order granting the motion to quash service of process as to defendant Krieger-Martin (one of the “unknown John Does”). Krieger-Martin was not named in the style of the complaint, nor was she referenced in any allegation contained in the body of the complaint.
In the absence of a statute authorizing such a procedure, the filing of a “John Doe” complaint is not sufficient to commence an action against a real party in interest. Grantham v. Blount, Inc., 683 So.2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The complaint failed to give this ostensible defendant actual notice that a lawsuit was being commenced against her. Liebman’s attempted service of process upon this individual (in which the summons described the person to be served as “unknown John Doe # 5”) cannot serve to satisfy this notice requirement. Gilliam v. Smart, 809 So.2d 905, 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“The service of process on an individual cannot be used to broaden the scope of the plead*1045ings to add a defendant who is not named as a party in the complaint.”).
We lack jurisdiction to review the two orders granting motions to dismiss the complaint without prejudice to amend. These orders are non-fínal and non-appeal-able. See Rule 9.130(a)(3), Fla. R.App. P.; Bank of America v. Cartus, 920 So.2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Welch v. Resolution Trust Corp., 590 So.2d 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Neptune v. Boncroft, 110 So. 3d 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…lure to state a cause of action and affording plaintiff leave to amend] is sought, the appeal is dismissed as this court lacks jurisdiction to review this non-final, non-appealable order. See, e.g., Liebman v. Miami-Dade Cnty.Code Compliance Office, 54 So. 3d 1043, 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding orders granting motion to dismiss and affording leave to amend are non-final, non-appealable). Dismissed. CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.…
-
Federico Dinardo and Patricia Dinardo v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)…vidual cannot be used to broaden the scope of the pleadings to add a defendant who is not named as a party in the complaint.”); Grantham v. Blount, Inc., 683 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). See also Liebman v. Miami-Dade Cty. Code Compliance Office, 54 So. 3d 1043, 1044 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“The complaint failed to give this ostensible defendant actual notice that a lawsuit was being commenced against her. Liebman’s attempted service of process upon this individual (in which the summons described the person t…
-
Sanchez v. Sec. First Ins. Co. (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gilliam v. Smart, 809 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Welch v. Resolution Tr. Corp., 590 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Grantham v. Blount, Inc., 683 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Bank OF Am., N.A. v. Cartus, 920 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Darrin Butler v. State, 920 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)