Fennell v. Beary

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fennell v. Beary

642 So. 2d 835, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9168, 1994 WL 515727

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 23, 1994

DocketNo. 93-2744

StatusPublished

This text of 642 So. 2d 835 (Fennell v. Beary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fennell v. Beary, 642 So. 2d 835, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9168, 1994 WL 515727 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

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[836]*836en 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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[836]*836en 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

642 So. 2d 835, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9168, 1994 WL 515727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fennell-v-beary-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack