ORIGINWAVE TECH SOFT PRIVATE LIMITED
v.
MOBILE INSIGHT, LLC
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.
An appeal from a trial court's judgment on an original claim must be dismissed when compulsory counterclaims arising from the same transaction remain pending below, as neither the claim nor counterclaim is final until both are resolved.
[1] An appeal from a summary judgment order is premature when compulsory counterclaims remain pending in the trial court.
[2] No appeal can be taken from either an original claim or a compulsory counterclaim until the final disposition of both.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[I]t has been uniformly held that, because of the interrelationship between an original claim and a compulsory counterclaim, no appeal could be taken from either until the final disposition of both the claim and the counterclaim.”
Court's justification for dismissing the appeal due to pending compulsory counterclaims.
Originwave appealed a summary judgment order entered in favor of Mobile Insight on Originwave's declaratory judgment claim. Compulsory counterclaims w…
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 Transaction Or Occurrence cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed March 28, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D16-2460 Lower Tribunal No. 12-17199
________________
Originwave Tech Soft Private Limited,
Appellant,
vs.
Mobile Insight, LLC,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge.
Law Office of Sean C. Burnotes, P.A., and Sean C. Burnotes (St. Petersburg), for appellant.
Law Offices of Charlton Stoner, P.A., and Charlton Stoner, for appellee.
Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and LUCK, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Upon our review, and consistent with the acknowledgment of the parties that compulsory counterclaims remain pending below, we dismiss this appeal from the trial court’s summary judgment order in favor of plaintiff on its declaratory judgment claim. See Londono v. Turkey Creek, Inc., 609 So. 2d 14, 19-20 (Fla.
1992);1 Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. v. Pough, 392 So. 2d 590, 591 (Fla. 3d DCA
1981) (recognizing that “[i]t has been uniformly held that, because of the interrelationship between an original claim and a compulsory counterclaim, no appeal could be taken from either until the final disposition of both the claim and the counterclaim.”)
Appeal dismissed.
[A] claim has a logical relationship to the original claim if it arises out of the same aggregate of operative facts as the original claim in two senses: (1) that the same aggregate of operative facts serves as the basis of both claims; or (2) that the aggregate core of facts upon which the original claim rests activates additional legal rights in a party defendant that would otherwise remain dormant.
Id. at 20 (quoting Neil v. S. Fla. Auto Painters, Inc., 397 So. 2d 1160, 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)) (additional citations omitted).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Javier H. Londono, M.D. v. Turkey Creek, Inc., 609 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1992)
- Maye G. Neil v. S. Fla. Auto Painters, Inc., 397 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. v. Pough, 392 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)