GMI, LLC v. Asociacion Del Futbol Argentino

174 So. 3d 500, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 12732, 2015 WL 5023491
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 26, 2015
Docket3D15-1678
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 174 So. 3d 500 (GMI, LLC v. Asociacion Del Futbol Argentino) 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
GMI, LLC v. Asociacion Del Futbol Argentino, 174 So. 3d 500, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 12732, 2015 WL 5023491 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

LOGUE, J.

GMI, LLC filed a notice of appeal seeking review of an order captioned “Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss” which it characterized as a final order. The body of the order reads in its entirety:

This cause having come to be heard on July 17, 2015 on Defendant’s motion to dismiss amended complaint and the court having heard arguments of counsel, and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is hereupon ORDERED and ADJUDGED that said motion be and same is hereby granted. Plaintiff is not granted leave to amend.

An order that merely grants a motion to dismiss is not a final order. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Madison Cnty. v. Grice, 438 So.2d 392, 394 (Fla.1983) (“An order on a motion to dismiss may not be final, but an order which actually dismisses the complaint is.”). This is true even if the order grants the motion “with prejudice.” Gries Inv. Co. v. Chelton, 388 So.2d 1281, 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (“An order granting a motion to dismiss is not final and not appealable. We reject [Appellant’s] contention that the addition of the words ‘with prejudice’ makes the order final.”). For an order to be final, it must constitute an entry of a dismissal of the case. It is the dismissal of the case that is final and ap-pealable, not an order simply granting a motion. Id.

As a plain reading indicates, the order under appeal merely grants a motion; it does not contain language that dismisses the case. Accordingly, it is not a final order and the notice of appeal is premature.

An order dismissing a case could be modeled, with necessary modifications, after the Order Dismissing Case for Lack of Prosecution contained in The Forms for Use with Rules of Civil Procedure, which the Florida Supreme Court has placed at the end of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. An appropriate order dismissing a case could be captioned “Final Order Dismissing the Case [or Complaint],” although the caption is not controlling. See Boyd v. Goff, 828 So.2d 468 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Its body might read “The motion to dismiss is granted. The plaintiff [name]’s complaint and case against defendant [name] are dismissed. The court reserves jurisdiction to consider a timely motion for costs and attorney’s fees.”

Although the appeal in this case is premature because the order appealed is not final, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(i) provides “[b]efore dismissal, the court in its discretion may grant the parties additional time to obtain a final order from the lower tribunal.” We exercise that discretion here and grant GMI thirty days to obtain a final order from the trial court and to file an amended notice of appeal. Chelton, 388 So.2d at 1282 n. 4. Failure to timely comply with this order will cause this appeal to be dismissed. This decision does not affect the progress of the appeal.

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

Related

Eco Green International LLC v. Acapital, S.R.O
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2025
Juana Y. Galvez v. CIT Bank
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2025
Michelle Pimienta v. David Abraham Rosenfeld
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2024
Toscano Condo Assoc. v. Dda Engineers
274 So. 3d 487 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019)
Ancla International v. Tribeca Asset Management
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019
Lanson v. Reid
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019
Salgado v. Suyapa-Jimenez
254 So. 3d 1053 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Heritage Property and Casualty Insurance Co. v. Romanach
224 So. 3d 262 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
174 So. 3d 500, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 12732, 2015 WL 5023491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gmi-llc-v-asociacion-del-futbol-argentino-fladistctapp-2015.