Integon Corp. v. Gordon

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Integon Corp. v. Gordon

953 So. 2d 725, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 5188, 2007 WL 1037390

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 9, 2007

DocketNo. 1D05-3187

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 953 So. 2d 725 (Integon Corp. v. Gordon) 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

Integon Corp. v. Gordon, 953 So. 2d 725, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 5188, 2007 WL 1037390 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

' PER CURIAM.

Appellants seek review of an interlocutory order granting appellee’s motion for class certification. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const, (granting to district courts of appeal jurisdiction to “review interlocutory orders ... to the extent provided by rules adopted by the supreme court”); Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi) (providing for appeal to the district courts of appeal of non-final orders that “determine ... that a class should be certified”). Because the order fails to “separately state the findings of fact ... upon which the determination [wa]s based” as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(d)(1), we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court comply with that provision. See, e.g., Seminole County v. Tivoli Orlando Assocs., Ltd., 920 So.2d 818, 824 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Ford Motor Co. v. Morris, 904 So.2d 612, 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); City of Tampa v. McAfee, 896 So.2d 943, 946 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). On remand, the trial court shall also rule on appellants’ contention that appellee lacks standing, and provide an explanation of the rationale on which its decision is based, to permit intelligent review of the determination.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

ALLEN, WEBSTER, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

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

' PER CURIAM.

Appellants seek review of an interlocutory order granting appellee’s motion for class certification. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const, (granting to district courts of appeal jurisdiction to “review interlocutory orders ... to the extent provided by rules adopted by the supreme court”); Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi) (providing for appeal to the district courts of appeal of non-final orders that “determine ... that a class should be certified”). Because the order fails to “separately state the findings of fact ... upon which the determination [wa]s based” as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(d)(1), we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court comply with that provision. See, e.g., Seminole County v. Tivoli Orlando Assocs., Ltd., 920 So.2d 818, 824 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Ford Motor Co. v. Morris, 904 So.2d 612, 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); City of Tampa v. McAfee, 896 So.2d 943, 946 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). On remand, the trial court shall also rule on appellants’ contention that appellee lacks standing, and provide an explanation of the rationale on which its decision is based, to permit intelligent review of the determination.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

ALLEN, WEBSTER, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

953 So. 2d 725, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 5188, 2007 WL 1037390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/integon-corp-v-gordon-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack