Hunt v. STAFF LEASING

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hunt v. STAFF LEASING

73 So. 3d 364, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 17539, 2011 WL 5301606

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 7, 2011·No. 1D11-3073·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellee’s Motion to Dismiss, filed on June 21, 2011, and the appellants’ response thereto, the Court has determined that claims disposed of by the lower tribunal in the order on appeal are inextricably intertwined with those claims left pending. Therefore, the April 20, 2011, Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint does not constitute a partial final judgment subject to immediate review pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k). Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed as premature.

DAVIS, PADOVANO, and ROWE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellee’s Motion to Dismiss, filed on June 21, 2011, and the appellants’ response thereto, the Court has determined that claims disposed of by the lower tribunal in the order on appeal are inextricably intertwined with those claims left pending. Therefore, the April 20, 2011, Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint does not constitute a partial final judgment subject to immediate review pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k). Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed as premature.

DAVIS, PADOVANO, and ROWE, JJ., concur.

Hunt v. STAFF LEASING, 73 So. 3d 364, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 17539, 2011 WL 5301606 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

73 So. 3d 364 (Hunt v. STAFF LEASING) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related