DA-VI NAILS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DAVI NAILS SALON AND SPA, LLC, A UTAH LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO DAVI NAILS; DAVID HA TRUONG; VI TRUONG CAO; TANYA TRAN; AND TINA SPERRY, 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 dismissed the appeal as premature because the trial court's May 23, 2013 order was not a final appealable order, as it failed to enter judgment on all claims and did not dispose of the entire complaint.
An order that fails to enter judgment on all claims and does not dispose of the entire complaint is not a final appealable order.
[1] An order that purports to be final but fails to enter judgment on all claims and does not clearly dispose of the entire complaint is not a final appealable order.
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 intelligenceDavi Nails, Inc. appealed from a May 23, 2013 Final Judgment that purported to determine entitlement on Count II and a counterclaim but failed to actu…
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 Entry Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
The Court has determined that the May 23, 2013, Final Judgment is not a final appealable order. Specifically, although the order appears to determine entitlement to judgment on Count II of the complaint and on the counterclaim, it does not actually enter judgment on either claim. Moreover, it is unclear whether the order disposes of the claims raised in Count I of the complaint. The order fails to enter judgment, and the decretal portion of the order does not appear to be sufficient to dispose of the entire claim. See Monticello Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 743 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Nor do the subsequently entered Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Entry of Final Order, and Motion for Stay Pending Appellate Review, and Order Granting Defendant’s Expedited Motion to Enforce Final Judgment, render the order final. Consequently, this appeal is premature, and the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a proper petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100. See Maddrie v. McDonough, 945 So.2d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); State v. Sullivan, 640 So.2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely is denied.
LEWIS, C. J., WOLF and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sandy Creek Airpark Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Summers (Fla. 1st DCA 2026)…N, Inc., Appellant, v. NORMAN C. SUMMERS, Appellee. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County. William S. Henry, Judge. February 25, 2026 PER CURIAM. The Court dismisses this appeal. See _Da-Vi Nails, Inc. Davi Nails Salon & Spa, LLC_, 131 So. 3d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (dismissing appeal because order merely determined entitlement to judgment without entering judgment and did not dispose of all pending claims); _Hickox v. Taylor_, 933 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (dismissing appeal because or…
Authorities Cited
- Monticello Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 743 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- State v. Sullivan, 640 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Maddrie v. McDONOUGH, 945 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)