MEDVEND, LLC
v.
INNOVATIONS AVOCARE, LLC D/B/A AVOCARE, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
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.
An order dismissing a plaintiff's claims is not a final or appealable order when related counterclaims by the defendants remain pending and unaddressed by the trial court.
[1] An order dismissing a party's claims is not a final order or appealable nonfinal order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 or 9.110(k) when related countercla…
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 intelligence“Closing a case file in which there are pending unaddressed counterclaims does not constitute a final disposition.”
The court's explanation of why the trial court's order was not final despite directing closure of the file.
The trial court granted sanctions and dismissed Medvend's fraud case against Innovations Avocare, directing the clerk to close the file while reservin…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.110(K) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The order appealed grants sanctions and dismisses Appellant’s case for fraud on the court. The order reserves jurisdiction for the consideration of fees and costs and directs the clerk to close the file. The order does not, however, address the Appellees/Defendants’ counterclaims that closely relate to the dismissed claims. We conclude that the order is not a final order, an appealable nonfinal order for purposes of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, nor a partial final judgment under Rule 9.110(k). See, e.g., Jensen v. Whetstine, 985 So. 2d 1218, 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (dismissing appeal where the dismissed claim involved the same parties and underlying facts as claims that remained pending); Libman v. Fla. Wellness & Rehab. Ctr., Inc., 260 So. 3d 515, 517-18 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (concluding that an order granting summary judgment on the only claim was not a partial final judgment because related counterclaims remained pending). While we understand the confusion surrounding the trial court’s direction to close the file, this action does not resolve Appellees’ pending counterclaims. Presumably, Appellees could have the court reopen the closed file on the counterclaims at any point. Closing a case file in which there are pending unaddressed counterclaims does not constitute a final disposition. Cf., Gomez v. Tamiami Youth Basketball, Inc., 49 Fla. L. Weekly D1705 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 14, 2024) (concluding that the trial court erred by not reopening a case file where claims and counterclaims remained pending after the dismissal of some parties and claims).
DISMISSED.
OSTERHAUS, C.J., and B.L. THOMAS and KELSEY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Jan Jeffrey Rubinstein of The Rubinstein Law Firm, Farmington Hills, MI, for Appellant.
Jaken Everette Roane of Guilday Law, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellees.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Viera v. Vivienne Lemus Viera (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Libman v. Fla. Wellness & Rehab. Ctr., 260 So. 3d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)