Furstace v. Migdall
161 So. 3d 559, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17404, 2014 WL 5392965
Opinion
Joseph Furstace and Joseph Galuszka appeal from an order granting Allan Mig-dall’s motion to dismiss their second amended complaint. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court’s order did not reflect that the dismissal was “with prejudice,” nor did it otherwise suggest that Appellants were precluded from seeking relief under an alternative theory. See Jim Macon Bldg. Contractors v. Lake Cnty., 763 So.2d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); EIR, Inc. v. Elec. Molding Corp., 540 So.2d 260 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Furstace v. Migdall, 161 So. 3d 559, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17404, 2014 WL 5392965 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).
161 So. 3d 559 (Furstace v. Migdall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
JIM MACON BLDG. CONTRACTORS. INC. v. Lake County
763 So. 2d 1223 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
EIR, Inc. v. Electronic Molding Corp.
540 So. 2d 260 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)