ROSS A. CLEVENS, APPELLANT,
v.
OMNI HEALTHCARE, INC. AND OMNI HEALTHCARE, P.A., 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.
Ross Clevens appealed a nonfinal order enforcing portions of a settlement agreement (the "Deal Points") between himself and OMNI Healthcare. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the order was not an appealable nonfinal order because it was a case management directive rather than an injunction.
The order is not an appealable nonfinal order. Although Clevens invoked the injunction exception to the final-order requirement, the trial court's order does not meet the definition of an injunction. The order merely declares certain settlement provisions binding and enforceable and directs the parties to continue negotiating, making it a case management order rather than an injunction.
[1] An order that declares certain provisions of a settlement agreement binding and directs parties to negotiate further is a nonfinal, nonappealable order.
[2] An order is not appealable as an injunction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B) unless it prohibits or commands certain acts to prevent irreparable i…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“An injunction is an equitable remedy, designed to protect property or other rights from irreparable injury by prohibiting or commanding certain acts.”
Establishes the legal definition of an injunction and the requirements for an order to qualify as an injunction for appellate jurisdiction purposes.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClevens and OMNI Healthcare attempted to settle disputes arising from a replevin action and business partnership dissolution. The parties executed a h…
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 Case Management Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Ross A. elevens (“elevens”) appeals from a nonfinal order entered pursuant to his settlement agreement with OMNI Healthcare, Inc. (“OMNI”). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.1
This appeal concerns the parties’ attempt to settle issues relating to a replevin action and dissolution of a business partnership. They memorialized the results of their meeting in a signed, handwritten document called “Deal Points Between OMNI Healthcare and Dr. elevens” (the “Deal Points”). The thirteen-paragraph document includes issues, most of which were outside the pleadings, that the parties allegedly settled and had yet to resolve. *1012The agreement directed elevens to pay certain moneys to OMNI and required the parties to reconvene within one week to settle the remaining items.
When the parties failed to agree to the outstanding issues, OMNI filed a motion to compel elevens to abide by the Deal Points. A hearing resulted in the issuance of an order that found the Deal Points binding as to certain paragraphs and nonbinding as to the remaining items. The order directed the parties to reconvene settlement negotiations within a week.
Upon review, we conclude the order is a nonappealable, nonfinal order, elevens argues this Court has jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B), which provides that appeals of nonfinal orders are limited to those that “grant, continue, modify, deny, or dissolve injunctions,” as well as those that “refuse to modify or dissolve injunctions.” However, “[a]n injunction is an equitable remedy, designed to protect property or other rights from irreparable injury by prohibiting or commanding certain acts.” 42 Am. Jur.2d Injunctions § 1 (2012) (footnotes omitted); see also Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Carroll, 776 So.2d 300, 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (explaining orders in nature of an injunction are appealable because they have practical effect of granting or denying an injunction; have serious, possibly irreparable consequences; and can be effectively challenged only by immediate appeal). The order here does not meet these requirements. It declares that certain provisions of the settlement agreement are binding and enforceable, nothing more. The order does direct the parties to meet to negotiate further, which is more akin to a case management order regulating the conduct of the parties before the court, than an injunction. See Lamothe v. Sellars, 695 So.2d 1259, 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
DISMISSED.
PALMER and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Planned Parenthood OF Greater Orlando v. MMB Props., 171 So. 3d 125 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…lable under the above rule. None of Planned Parenthood’s appellate arguments, however, relate to the second order. . Preliminary orders entered by an appellate court in the same appeal are not binding on the court, Clevens v. Omni Healthcare, Inc., 83 So. 3d 1011, 1011 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Hialeah Hotel, Inc. v. Woods, 778 So. 2d 314, 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). . We acknowledge conflict with the Third and Fourth District Courts of Appeal, as noted in Minty v. Meister Financial Grp., Inc., 132 So. 3d 373,…
-
Wohlfeld v. Portofino Towers Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2136 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…., Inc., 133 1 Appellee filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, contending that the orders at issue are not in the nature of injunctions, but instead are in the nature of nonappealable case management orders, citing Clevens v. Omni Healthcare, Inc., 83 So. 3d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). We denied appellee’s motion to dismiss, and we treat this as an appeal of non-final orders under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B) (nonfinal orders that “grant, continue, modify, deny, or dissolve injunctions .…
Authorities Cited
- Hialeah Hotel, Inc. v. Woods, 778 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Lamothe v. Sellars, 695 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Jud. Watch, Inc. v. Carroll, 776 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)