PATRICK NEPTUNE, APPELLANT,
v.
VERONICA BONCROFT AND SCOTT RUBINCHIK, 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.
This case involves an appeal by Patrick Neptune challenging three lower court orders. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review the non-final orders, either through direct appeal or certiorari.
The appellate court does not have jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal of these non-final orders. Certiorari review is also unavailable for the protective order and vexatious litigant order absent a showing of irreparable harm.
“For the reasons which follow, we dismiss this appeal.”
States the court's ultimate decision on the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatrick Neptune filed a notice of appeal challenging three orders from the lower court: one granting a protective order regarding interrogatories, ano…
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 Non-Final, Non-Appealable Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Patrick Neptune has filed a notice of appeal challenging (1) an order granting defendant Rubinchik’s motion for protective order as to interrogatories propounded by plaintiff; (2) an order granting defendant Rubinchik’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and affording plaintiff leave to amend; and (3) an order ruling on defendant Rubinchik’s motion to declare plaintiff a “vexatious litigant.” For the reasons which follow, we dismiss this appeal.
*538The notice of appeal was improper as to orders (1) [granting motion for protective order as to interrogatories] and (3) [declaring plaintiff a “vexatious litigant”], and we see no basis for certiorari review. See Baldwin v. Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc., 45 So.3d 118, 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding orders granting protective order are reviewable by certiorari only where there is a demonstration of irreparable harm), review denied, 55 So.3d 1288 (Fla.2011); Favreau v. Favreau, 940 So.2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (holding order prohibiting wife from further pro se filings was not final appealable order, was not one of non-final orders listed in rule 9.130, and certiorari review available only where departure from essential requirements of law resulting in irreparable injury is demonstrated); Bared & Co. v. McGuire, 670 So.2d 153, 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (holding appellate court lacks jurisdiction to exercise certio-rari review in the absence of irreparable harm). To the extent review of order (2) [granting motion to dismiss for failure 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The Bared & Co., Inc. v. McGUIRE, 670 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Baldwin v. Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc., 45 So. 3d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Branch v. Dep't OF Health, 940 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Liebman v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Code Compliance Off., 54 So. 3d 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)