DR. JOSE ALBERTO TEJADA-GUIBERT, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, 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.
The court held that correspondence between a university and a faculty member regarding employment terms does not constitute a final agency action subject to appellate review.
Appellant sought appellate review of correspondence from Florida International University concerning changes to his teaching appointment. He character…
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 Final Agency Action cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Dr. Tejada-Guibert (“Tejada-Guibert”) is a faculty member at Florida International University (“FIU”). After the terms of his teaching appointment were changed by FIU, Tejada-Guibert sought appellate review by this Court of a set of correspondence between FIU representatives and Tejada-Guibert.
Tejada-Guibert characterizes this correspondence as “final agency action” within the meaning of section 120.68, Florida Statutes (2014), and rule 9.030(b)(l)C) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such correspondence, however, is riot “a written final decision which results from a proceeding” conducted pursuant to chapter 120 of the Florida Statutes and, therefore, does not constitute a final order. § 120.52(7), Fla. Stat. (2014).
We therefore lack jurisdiction to hear Tejada-Guibert’s appeal. See Sowell v. State, 136 So.3d 1285 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); 4-24,5 Corp., Mother’s Lounge, Inc. v. Div. of Beverage, 348 So.2d 934, 936 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (“The finality of agency action is the principal jurisdictional requisite to judicial review as of right”).
We dismiss Tejada-Guibert’s appeal sua sponte without prejudice to Tejada-Gui-bert to pursue remedies that otherwise may be available to him.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hawthorne v. Lyons, 192 So. 3d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…t DCA 2009). The party moving for summary judgment must conclusively show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and the court must draw every possible inference in favor of the non-moving party. Villanueva v. Reynolds, Smith & Hills, Inc., 159 So. 3d 200, 203 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating by competent evidence the non-existence of any question of material fact. Palm Beach Pain Mgmt. Inc. v. Carroll, 7 So. 3d 1144, 1145 (Fla. 4th…
Authorities Cited
- 4245 Corp. v. Division OF Beverage, 348 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Sowell v. State, 136 So. 3d 1285 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)