RORI & DILOW ESTATES, RORI CORPORATION, AND DILOW ESTATES, INC., PETITIONERS,
v.
MICHAEL J. PURDY, RESPONDENT
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 petitioners' certiorari petition because the summary judgment was not final and appealable after petitioners amended their pleadings to add new claims against the respondent, and petitioners would have an adequate remedy through plenary appeal once a final order is entered.
A summary judgment disposing of all claims against a respondent is not a final, appealable order when the plaintiff amends its pleadings before the appeal deadline to add new claims arising from the same transaction.
[1] A summary judgment that initially disposes of all claims against a defendant is not a final, appealable order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k) if the pl…
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 intelligencePetitioners obtained a partial final summary judgment disposing of all claims involving the respondent, but before the notice of appeal deadline, they…
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 Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners seek review of a partial final summary judgment. When the order was entered, it disposed of all claims involving the respondent. However, before the time had run for filing the notice of appeal, petitioners were allowed to amend their pleadings to allege a new cause of action arising out of the same transaction. By the time they sought review in this court, the case was no longer entirely disposed of as to the respondent, so the summary judgment was not a final, appealable order within the meaning of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k).
We dismiss the petitions seeking certiorari review or a writ of mandamus because the petitioners will have an adequate remedy on plenary appeal when a final order is entered on their new claims against respondent. Allowing review at this point would be contrary to Florida’s policy of avoiding piecemeal appeals. Pellegrino By and Through Pellegrino v. Horwitz, 642 So. 2d 124, 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Mendez v. West Flagler Family Association, Inc., 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1974). Dismissal is therefore without prejudice to the rights of the parties to file a timely notice of appeal once a final order is rendered in the case below.
WARNER, C.J., GUNTHER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mendez v. W. Flagler Fam. Ass'n, Inc., 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974)
- Pellegrino v. Jeffrey Horwitz, M.D., 642 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)