A. C. HANCOCK, G. D. POLLY, GLENN ALLEN, WESLEY G. DOWNING AND W. H. DOUB, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANTS,
v.
WLLFORD J. PIPER AND ALIDA PIPER, HUSBAND AND WIFE, AND LESTER T. PIPER AND LUCILLE PIPER, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLEES
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 an order dismissing a complaint with leave to amend does not automatically become final upon failure to meet the amendment deadline.
Plaintiffs mailed their second amended complaint one day after the deadline. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the prior order dismissing the compl…
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 Finality Of Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendants bring timely interlocutory appeal from an order denying their motion to dismiss. The appellants contend, that the court lacks jurisdiction over the parties and over the cause.
The briefs and appendix reveal that on 10 September 1964 plaintiffs’ amended complaint was dismissed with twenty days leave to amend. On 29 September 1964, plaintiffs mailed their second amended complaint to the Clerk of Circuit Court and to the defendants. Since the amended complaint was not actually filed until the twenty first day on 1 October 1964; the defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction over the parties and the cause.
The defendants contend that the prior order dismissing the action with twenty days leave to amend became automatically final when plaintiffs failed to file their amended complaint on the twentieth day. This contention is without merit. The order appealed reads in pertinent part:
“ORDERED, ADJUDGED and - DECREED that said motion be and - the same hereby is granted, and this cause be, and the same hereby is- dismissed, and it is further,
“ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the plaintiffs be granted twenty (20) days within which to file their amended complaint in the above styled cause.”
This order merely dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. It did not dismiss the cause. It lacked the requisite finality to relieve the court of further judicial labor in the case. Cf. Washington Security Co. v. Tracy’s Plumbing and Pumps, Inc., Fla. App.1964, 166 So.2d 680, 682. Compare Stevens v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla. *208App.1964, 164 So.2d 273, cited by appellants where the complaint was dismissed by an order which provided that if an amended complaint were not filed within fifteen days “ ‘this cause shall stand dismissed with prejudice * * *.’ ” Other cases cited by the appellants are similarly distinguishable.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and SHANNON and WHITE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Edward L. Nezelek, Inc. v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 413 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ision is required to serve notice of hearing under Rule 1.090(d). Nor will an order of dismissal with leave to amend, without more, serve as notice of a motion to dismiss with prejudice in the event of failure to amend. See, e.g., Hancock v. Piper, 175 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965), cert. discharged, 186 So. 2d 489 (Fla.1966). See also Johnson v. Boyd-Richardson Co., supra; Trujillo v. Colorado, supra; Mann v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc., supra. This is distinguished from the situation wher…
-
Hancock v. Wilford J. Piper and Alida Piper, 186 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1966)…ROBERTS, Justice. The petitioner, by certiorari, seeks to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, reported in 175 So. 2d 207. Conflict having been made to appear between such decision and Womack v. Goldberg, Fla.App. 1960, 117 So. 2d 758, we assumed jurisdiction and set the case for argument. The respondents’ (plaintiffs’) amended complaint in chancery was dismissed by t…
-
Yarima Moreno v. People's Tr. Ins. Co. (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Wash. Sec. Co. v. Tracy's Plumbing & Pumps, Inc., 166 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Stevens v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 164 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Manasota Mem'l Park, Inc. v. Conrad, 164 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)