GUSS FENNELL, APPELLANT,
v.
ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT SHERIFF KEVIN BEARY, ET AL., APPELLEE
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 dismissed an appeal of an order striking portions of a complaint as non-final and non-appealable, holding that piecemeal appeals of interlocutory orders are not permitted absent a final judgment.
An order striking portions of a complaint that do not constitute a separate and distinct cause of action is a non-final, non-appealable interlocutory order.
[1] An interlocutory order striking portions of a complaint that do not constitute a separate and distinct cause of action and are interdependent with remaining claims is not…
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 intelligenceGuss Fennell sued the Orange County Sheriff's Department alleging excessive use of force. The trial court struck portions of his third amended complai…
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 Piecemeal Appeals cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Guss Fennell appeals an order of the trial court which struck portions of his third amended complaint. Because the trial court’s order is a non-final non-appealable order, this appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Niesz v. R. P. Morgan Bldg. Co., Inc., 401 So. 2d 822, 822-823 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); One Thousand Oaks, Inc. v. Dade Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 417 So. 2d 1135, 1135-1136 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
The gravamen of Fennell’s law suit is the allegation of excessive use of force by employees of the Sheriff of Orange County, Florida. The trial court struck portions of Fennell’s complaint containing case law, his interpretation of that case law and his request for a declaratory judgment on the issue of the use of excessive force. The remaining portions of the complaint all request relief for the alleged use of excessive force. The stricken portions do not constitute a separate and distinct cause of action independent of the remaining claims. Therefore, the striek en portions and the remaining portions are interdependent and cannot be appealed piecemeal. Fennell cannot appeal the striking of these portions until after the entry of a final judgment. Finney v. Wonder Dev. Corp., 392 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
DISMISSED.
PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Niesz v. R. P. Morgan Bldg., 401 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- ONE Thousand Oaks, Inc. v. Dade Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 417 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Finney v. Wonder Dev. Corp., 392 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)