KLING CORPORATION, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
HOLA NETWORKS CORPORATION, ETC., 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.
Orders that only find entitlement to attorney's fees but do not set the amount are non-final and non-appealable.
Appellants appealed orders granting sanctions and denying rehearing, which found entitlement to attorney's fees but deferred the amount to a later dat…
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 Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Appellees, Hola Networks Corporation and Hispanic Network Group, LLC, (collectively “Appellees”) move to dismiss the appeal filed by Appellants, Kling Corporation, Anthony Kling, and Santiago A. Cue-to, Esq., (collectively “Appellants”). Ap-pellees contend that the orders on appeal are non-final orders and that this Court, therefore, lacks jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. We agree.
Appellants appeal from a June 19, 2013 Order granting Appellees’ Motion for Sanctions (the “Order”), and from a June 19, 2013 Order denying Appellants’ Motion for Rehearing. The Orders at issue expressly state that the amount of fees to be awarded would be determined at a later date.
An order that merely finds entitlement to attorney’s fees but does not set an amount is a non-final, non-appealable order. See Alexopoulos v. Gordon Hargrove & James, P.A., 109 So.3d 248, 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Mills v. Martinez, 909 So.2d 340, 342 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“An award of attorneys’ fees does not become final, and, therefore, appealable until the amount is set by the trial court.”); Chaiken v. Suchman, 694 So.2d 115, 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (stating that an order awarding entitlement to attorney’s fees does not become final until the amount of the fee is set). Nor is such an order one of the enumerated appealable non-final orders set forth in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. See Fla. RApp. P. 9.130(a)(3).
Because the Orders on appeal do not set the amount of the award, but only find an entitlement to fees, we grant the Appel-lees’ motion and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Motion granted; appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Diaz v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 227 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…e portion of the appeal relating to attorney’s fees. This is so because no amount has been fixed by the trial court and the part of the final judgment that finds entitlement thereto is not ripe for our review. See Kling Corp. v. Hola Networks Corp., 127 So. 3d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (citing Alexopoulos v. Gordon Hargrove & James, P.A., 109 So. 3d 248, 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (order that merely finds entitlement to attorney’s fees but does not set an amount is non-final and non-appealable); Mills v. Martinez,…
-
HSBC Bank USA v. Buset, 216 So. 3d 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…once trial court had determined sanctions). To avoid any confusion, any post-judgment order awarding fees would not be final or ripe for appellate review until both entitlement and amount have been determined. See Kling Corp. v. Hola Networks Corp., 127 So. 3d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Accordingly, as the Trustee appeals only from the portion of the Order granting Appellee’s motion for involuntary dismissal, and that portion of the Order contains language that enters judgment, we deny Appellee’s motion to dism…
-
Reynaldo Acosta and Iliana B. Acosta v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 245 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…rtion of the appeal relating to attorney's fees .... because no amount has been fixed by the trial court and the part of the final judgment that finds entitlement thereto is not ripe for our review." (first citing Kling Corp. v. Hola Networks Corp., 127 So. 3d 833, 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) ); then citing Mills v. Martinez, 909 So. 2d 340, 342 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ; and then citing Chaiken v. Suchman, 694 So. 2d 115, 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ). "Nor is such an order one of the enumerated appealable non-final orders…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mills v. Martinez, 909 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Filmore Chaiken and Robert T. Tenen v. Suchman, 694 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Ekaterini Alexopoulos and Konstantinos Alexopoulos v. Gordon Hargrove & James, P.A., 109 So. 3d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)