CRYSTAL TRISH GONZALEZ
v.
COLISEUM MOTORS, A CORPORATION AND CHARLES HIGBEE
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.
Crystal Trish Gonzalez appealed a trial court's dismissal of her complaint, but the First District Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing Gonzalez to refile her claims.
The appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review the trial court's order because the dismissal was without prejudice, which does not constitute a final appealable order.
[1] An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review an order granting a motion to dismiss without prejudice because such an order is not a final, appealable judgment.
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“dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction where the trial court granted a motion to dismiss without prejudice”
Establishes the jurisdictional bar to appellate review when a dismissal is without prejudice
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court granted a motion to dismiss in Gonzalez's case against Coliseum Motors and Charles Higbee without prejudice, permitting Gonzalez to am…
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 Lack Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
DISMISSED. See McGuire v. Fla. Lottery, 17 So. 3d 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction where the trial court granted a motion to dismiss without prejudice); see also Kopel v. Kopel, 229 So. 3d 812 (Fla. 2017) (recognizing for statute of limitations purposes that “as long as the initial complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the . . . factual underpinning of the claim, amendments stating new legal theories can relate back . . . even where the legal theory of recovery has changed or where the original and amended claims require the assertion of different elements”).
OSTERHAUS, C.J., and LEWIS and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kopel v. Bernardo Kopel, 229 So. 3d 812 (Fla. 2017)
- McGUIRE v. Florida Lottery, 17 So. 3d 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)