ANCLA INTERNATIONAL
v.
TRIBECA ASSET MANAGEMENT
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.
Ancla International filed a premature appeal of an order titled "Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss," which the trial court had not yet entered as a final dismissal. The appellate court found the appeal premature because an order merely granting a motion to dismiss is not a final, appealable order, but exercised discretion to allow Ancla additional time to obtain a final dismissal order from the trial court.
An order that merely grants a motion to dismiss is not a final, appealable order; rather, it is the actual dismissal of the case that is final and appealable. The court exercised discretion to give Ancla 30 days to obtain a final dismissal order from the trial court and file an amended notice of appeal.
[1] An order that merely grants a motion to dismiss, without entering a formal dismissal of the case, is not a final and appealable order under Florida law.
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 intelligence“An order that merely grants a motion to dismiss is not a final order. . . . For an order to be final, it must constitute an entry of a dismissal of the case. It is the dismissal of the case that is final and appealable, not an order simply granting a motion.”
Court citing GMI, LLC v. Asociacion del Futbol Argentino, 174 So. 3d 500, 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) to establish the distinction between a final order and an order merely granting a motion.
Ancla International filed a notice of appeal seeking review of an order granting a motion to dismiss. The trial court's order was titled "Proposed Ord…
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 Premature Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
LINDSEY, J.
On Order to Show Cause
Ancla International, S.A., filed a notice of appeal seeking review of an order titled “Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss[.]” The notice characterizes the order under review as a final order. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(d) (“The notice shall contain . . . the nature of the order to be reviewed.”). Because an order that merely grants a motion to dismiss is not a final, appealable order, we ordered the parties to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. See GMI, LLC v. Asociacion del Futbol Argentino, 174 So. 3d 500, 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (“An order that merely grants a motion to dismiss is not a final order. . . . For an order to be final, it must constitute an entry of a dismissal of the case. It is the dismissal of the case that is final and appealable, not an order simply granting a motion.”).
The parties have failed to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as premature;1 however, we exercise our discretion and grant Ancla 1 Ancla argues that the trial court “wrongly labeled the order[,]” which “is not a basis to make an order non-final and unappealable.” While it is true that the title of the order is not controlling, here the language in the order itself does not enter a dismissal or establish finality. Cf. Boyd v. Goff, 828 So. 2d 468, 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (finding that an “Order Granting Summary Judgment” was nevertheless final because it contained language entering final judgment in favor defendant).
Both parties also contend that the order is appealable as a non-final order pursuant to Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) because the order determines “entitlement of a party to arbitration[.]” The parties only provide us with examples of interlocutory orders—such as orders denying motions to compel arbitration. See Philip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice § 24:2 (2018 ed.) (“Rule 9.130 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure authorizes interlocutory review by appeal as to a limited class of pretrial orders that could not be effectively reviewed on appeal thirty (30) days to obtain a final order from the trial court and to file an amended notice of appeal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(l).2 Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this appeal. Oral argument in this case, which is set for Monday, March 18, 2019, is hereby cancelled but may, in this Court’s discretion, be rescheduled upon the filing of a final order on appeal.
from the final judgment . . . .”). Here, the dismissal can effectively be reviewed on appeal from a final judgment; the appeal is simply premature because the trial court failed to enter a dismissal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- GMI, LLC v. Asociacion del Futbol Argentino, 174 So. 3d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- Boyd v. Goff, 828 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)