In Re AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.130

151 So. 3d 1217, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 675, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 3323, 2014 WL 5856302
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedNovember 13, 2014
DocketSC13-1493
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 151 So. 3d 1217 (In Re AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.130) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.130, 151 So. 3d 1217, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 675, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 3323, 2014 WL 5856302 (Fla. 2014).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for consideration the out-of-cycle report of proposed amendments to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 (Proceedings to Review Non-Final Orders and Specified Final Orders), filed by The Florida Bar’s Appellate Court Rules Committee (Committee). See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(f). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. As discussed below, we adopt the amendment to rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(x) as proposed by the Committee; but we modify the proposed amendment to rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(xi) to authorize appeals of nonfinal orders that determine, as a matter of law, that a party is not entitled to sovereign immunity.

BACKGROUND

The Committee proposes amendments to rule 9.130 in response to a request by the Court in Keck v. Eminisor, 104 So.3d 359 (Fla.2012). In Keck, the Court requested that the Committee “submit a proposed narrow amendment to rule 9.130 addressing the. rule change mandated by [that] decision,” id. at 366, allowing for interlocutory review “where an individual defendant who claims immunity under [section] 768.28(9)(a)[, Florida Statutes,] is denied that immunity and the issue turns on a matter of law.” Id. at 369. In the concurring opinion, a majority of the Court further recommended that the Committee “undertake a comprehensive review of whether the categories of non-final orders in rule 9.130(a)(3) should be expanded to include the denial of any claim of immunity where the question presented is solely a question of law.” Id. at 370 (Pariente, J., concurring with an opinion in which Lewis, Labarga, and Perry, JJ., concur).

The Committee submitted the proposals without publishing them for comment. The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar unanimously approved the proposals. After the proposals were filed, the Court published them for comment. The Court received no comments.

AMENDMENTS

Rule 9.130(a)(3) (Applicability) specifies the types of nonfinal orders that can be appealed to the district courts. We add a new subdivision (a)(3)(C)(x), as proposed by the Committee, to authorize appeals from nonfinal orders which determine “that, as a matter of law, a party is not entitled to immunity under section 768.28(9), Florida Statutes.” Additionally, the Committee proposes adding new subdivision (a)(3)(C)(xi) to authorize appeals from nonfinal orders which determine that, as a matter of law, a party is not entitled to any immunity from suit not otherwise addressed in this rule. However, because we have concerns that claims pertaining to immunity as a whole may be too broad, we modify the Committee’s proposal to authorize appeals from nonfinal orders which *1218 determine, as a matter of law, that a party is not entitled to sovereign immunity.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we amend Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by underscoring; deletions are indicated by struck-through type. The amendments shall become effective January 1, 2015, at 12:01 a.m.

It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

APPENDIX

RULE 9.130. PROCEEDINGS TO REVIEW NON-FINAL ORDERS AND SPECIFIED FINAL ORDERS

(a) Applicability.

(l)-(2) [No Change]
(3) Appeals to the district courts of appeal of non-final orders are limited to those that
(A)-(B) [No Change]
(C) determine
(i)-(vii) [No Change]
(viii) that a governmental entity has taken action that has inordinately burdened real property within the meaning of section 70.001(6)(a), Florida Statutes; or
(ix) the issue of forum non conve-niens!
(x) that, as a matter of law, a party is not entitled to immunity under section 768.28(9), Florida Statutes; or
(xi) that, as a matter of law, a party is not entitled to sovereign immuni-⅛
(D) [No Change]
(4) — (6) [No Change]
(b)-(h) [No Change]
Committee Notes

1977-2008 Amendments. [No Change]

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

Related

CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE v. WALTER HINTON
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019
Dept. of Children and Families v. Feliciano
259 So. 3d 957 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Florida Highway Patrol, a division etc. v. Lashonta Renea Jackson, as Per. Rep. etc.
238 So. 3d 430 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. Lewis Tein, P.L.
227 So. 3d 656 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Eagle Arts Academy, Inc. v. Tri-City Electric Co., Inc.
211 So. 3d 1083 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Miami-Dade County v. Pozos
242 So. 3d 1152 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Parker v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc.
835 F.3d 1363 (Eleventh Circuit, 2016)
Beach Community Bank v. City of Freeport, Florida
150 So. 3d 1111 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
151 So. 3d 1217, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 675, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 3323, 2014 WL 5856302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendments-to-florida-rule-of-appellate-procedure-9130-fla-2014.