ADBELAZIZ HAMZE, APPELLANT,
v.
JERMAINE HALL, 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the trial court orders appealed—granting summary judgment on liability, denying a motion to vacate default, and deeming requests for admission admitted—were interlocutory orders that did not dispose of all issues, particularly the remaining issue of damages.
The court lacks appellate jurisdiction because the orders are interlocutory orders that do not dispose of all issues in the case, particularly the unresolved issue of damages. An order granting summary judgment on liability alone is not an independently appealable interlocutory order, and an order denying a motion to set aside a default judgment is not reviewable until a final judgment is entered.
[1] An order granting summary judgment as to liability alone, where damages remain to be determined, is not a final, appealable order.
[2] An order denying a motion to set aside a default judgment is not reviewable until a final judgment has been entered.
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“A final judgment is one which ends the litigation between the parties and disposes of all issues involved such that no further action by the court will be necessary.”
Establishes the legal standard for what constitutes a final, appealable judgment, which is the core reason for dismissing the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Hamze appealed three trial court orders: an order granting Appellee Hall's motion to deem requests for admission admitted, an order denying …
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 Appealability Of Non-Final Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
Having reviewed Appellant’s response to the Court’s order to show cause, this cause is sua sponte dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Appellant appeals the following trial court orders: an order granting Appellee’s motion to deem requests for admission admitted; an order denying Appellant’s motion to vacate default judgment; and an order granting Appellee’s motion for summary judgment as to liability. These orders do not, individually or together, dispose of all issues involved; in particular, we note that the issue of damages remains to be determined. See Canfield v. Cantele, 837 So.2d 371, 375 (Fla. 2002) (“A final judgment is one which ends the litigation between the parties and disposes of all issues involved such that no further action by the court will be necessary.”).
Relatedly, although an order granting summary judgment on liability alone is an interlocutory order, see Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c), it is not an interlocutory order that may be independently appealed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3) (listing non-final orders that are appealable to the District Courts of Appeal); see also Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Murphy, 162 So.3d 1049, 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (holding that an order granting summary judgment on liability where damages remained in dispute was not a final, appealable order). Furthermore, an order denying a motion to set aside a default judgment is not reviewable until a final judgment has been entered. Dawkins, Inc. v. Huff, 836 So.2d 1062, 1063-65 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
We therefore dismiss this case for lack of appellate jurisdiction, without prejudice for a timely appeal following the entry of an appealable final judgment or appealable non-final order under rule 9.130(a)(3).
Dismissed.
Levine, Forst and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Caufield v. Gino Cantele, 837 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 2002)
- Mack v. State, 836 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Chad Murphy & Lorraine Murphy, 162 So. 3d 1049 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
- Ehren Witt v. State, 162 So. 3d 1049 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)