WD 19790
v.
TRUST
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 order dismissing a counterclaim for abuse of process is not a separate and distinct appealable order when the abuse of process allegations are intertwined with the merits of the underlying pending litigation.
[1] An order dismissing an abuse of process counterclaim is not appealable as a separate and distinct cause of action under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k) when…
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 intelligenceAppellant filed a Second Amended Counterclaim containing Count VI alleging abuse of process based on claims that Appellees' Third Amended and Suppleme…
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 Interdependent Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
LOGUE, J.
The order dismissing Count VI of Appellant’s Second Amended Counterclaim is not an appealable order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k) as “a separate and distinct cause of action that is not interdependent with other pleaded claims” because Count VI alleges abuse of process on the basis that the Appellees’ Third Amended and Supplemental Complaint “is a sham and seeks de minimis, nominal and/or technical damages, if any, without a reasonable prospect of success.” This allegation is intertwined with the litigation still pending in the trial court concerning the legal and factual merits of that Complaint. See, e.g., Bardakjy v. Empire Inv. Holdings, LLC, 239 So. 3d 146, 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). Accordingly, Appellees’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Appeal dismissed.