CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, LODGE NO. 31, RAYMOND L. SULLIVAN, CHRISTOPHER SCHULLER, DONALD HAMMOND AND STEPHEN G. DENIGRIS, 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 appellate court dismissed the City of Fort Lauderdale's appeal because the order it sought to review was interlocutory, not a final appealable order. The order vacated a prior arbitration award and ordered a rehearing, making it non-final.
No, an order vacating an arbitration award and directing a rehearing is an interlocutory, non-appealable order. Only an order vacating an award without directing a rehearing is considered final and appealable.
[1] An order vacating an arbitration award and directing a rehearing before a new arbitrator is an interlocutory order and not a final appealable order.
[2] A motion for rehearing is unauthorized under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(a) and (b) when applied to an interlocutory order, and therefore does not stay renditio…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Contrary to the City’s argument, we conclude that the order under review is not a final appealable order under Section 682.20, Florida Statutes (1989).”
Establishes the core reason for dismissal: the order is not final and appealable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Fort Lauderdale appealed an order from the circuit court that vacated a prior arbitration award and directed a rehearing before a new arbi…
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 Rendition Of Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The City of Fort Lauderdale [City] has filed a notice of appeal or in the alternative a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of an order entered by the circuit court below in an arbitration matter arising out of a labor dispute involving public employees. We have previously entered an order (a) finding that the appropriate showing had not been made to invoke our certiorari jurisdiction, and (b) directing the City to show cause whether this appeal is untimely or premature. Both parties have filed appropriate responses which we have reviewed.
Contrary to the City’s argument, we conclude that the order under review is not a final appealable order under Section 682.20, Florida Statutes (1989).
The order vacates a prior arbitration award and directs a rehearing of the subject arbitration before a new arbitrator; it is, therefore, interlocutory in nature. Indeed, it has been expressly held that such an order is a non-appealable, interlocutory order, as only “[a]n order vacating an [arbitration] award without directing a rehearing” is a final appealable order under Section 682.20(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1989) (former Section 57.-29).
Carner v. Freedman, 175 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965).
This being so, it necessarily follows that the City’s motion for rehearing did not stay rendition of the order appealed from under Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g) as such motion was unauthorized under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530(a), (b), and that the notice of appeal filed more than thirty days after the rendition of said order was untimely. See, e.g., Wagner v. Bieley, Wagner & Assoc., 263 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1972); Potucek v. Smeja, 419 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Reilly v. Hyster, 307 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
However, because the order under review is itself a non-ap-pealable, interlocutory order whether the notice was timely filed or not, we dismiss the instant appeal on this basis alone, without prejudice to the City to take a timely appeal from an adverse final order when entered below in this cause.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T. Stevens Felger, M.D. and North Florida Surgeons, P. A. v. Mock, 65 So. 3d 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…A 1993) (holding the “order of the trial court in this case vacating an arbitration award and ordering a rehearing before a new arbitrator is a non-final, nonappealable order”); and City of Fort Lauderdale v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 31, 582 So. 2d 162, 162-63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (holding “such an order is a non-appealable, interlocutory order, as only ‘[a]n order vacating an [arbitration] award without directing a rehearing’ is a final appealable order under Section 682.20(l)(e), Florida Statutes…
-
Zabawa v. Gaeton "Guy" Della Penna, 868 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…s, is a non-final order and is therefore not appealable on this basis. Central Florida Police Benevolent Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Orlando, 614 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); City of Fort [*1293] Lauderdale v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 31, 582 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). The fact that the order is labeled “Second Amended Final Judgment” does not control. It is the substance of the order, not the label affixed to it, that determines its nature for purposes of section 4(b)(1) and rule 9.030(b)(1)(…
-
Cent. Fla. Police Benevolent Ass'n, Inc. v. City OF Orlando, 614 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…PER CURIAM. The order of the trial court in this case vacating an arbitration award and ordering a rehearing before a new arbitrator is a non-final, nonappealable order. See City of Fort Lauderdale v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 31, 582 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. APPEAL DISMISSED. HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., and COWART, Judge, Retired, concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wagner v. Bieley, 263 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972)
- Potucek v. Smeja, 419 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Ga. Indus. Realty Co. v. Duval Connecting R.R. Co., 175 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Reilly v. Hyster Co., 307 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)