Neptune v. Boncroft

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Neptune v. Boncroft

110 So. 3d 537, 2013 WL 1440198, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5700

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 10, 2013

DocketNo. 4D12-2277

StatusPublished

This text of 110 So. 3d 537 (Neptune v. Boncroft) 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

Neptune v. Boncroft, 110 So. 3d 537, 2013 WL 1440198, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5700 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

STEVENSON, J.

Patrick Neptune has filed a notice of appeal challenging (1) an order granting defendant Rubinchik’s motion for protective order as to interrogatories propounded by plaintiff; (2) an order granting defendant Rubinchik’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and affording plaintiff leave to amend; and (3) an order ruling on defendant Rubinchik’s motion to declare plaintiff a “vexatious litigant.” For the reasons which follow, we dismiss this appeal.

[538]*538The notice of appeal was improper as to orders (1) [granting motion for protective order as to interrogatories] and (3) [declaring plaintiff a “vexatious litigant”], and we see no basis for certiorari review. See Baldwin v. Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc., 45 So.3d 118, 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding orders granting protective order are reviewable by certiorari only where there is a demonstration of irreparable harm), review denied, 55 So.3d 1288 (Fla.2011); Favreau v. Favreau, 940 So.2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (holding order prohibiting wife from further pro se filings was not final appealable order, was not one of non-final orders listed in rule 9.130, and certiorari review available only where departure from essential requirements of law resulting in irreparable injury is demonstrated); Bared & Co. v. McGuire, 670 So.2d 153, 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (holding appellate court lacks jurisdiction to exercise certio-rari review in the absence of irreparable harm). To the extent review of order (2) [granting motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and affording plaintiff leave to amend] is sought, the appeal is dismissed as this court lacks jurisdiction to review this non-final, non-appealable order. See, e.g., Liebman v. Miami-Dade Cnty.Code Compliance Office, 54 So.3d 1043, 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding orders granting motion to dismiss and affording leave to amend are non-final, non-appealable).

Dismissed.

CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

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

STEVENSON, J.

Patrick Neptune has filed a notice of appeal challenging (1) an order granting defendant Rubinchik’s motion for protective order as to interrogatories propounded by plaintiff; (2) an order granting defendant Rubinchik’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and affording plaintiff leave to amend; and (3) an order ruling on defendant Rubinchik’s motion to declare plaintiff a “vexatious litigant.” For the reasons which follow, we dismiss this appeal.

[538]*538The notice of appeal was improper as to orders (1) [granting motion for protective order as to interrogatories] and (3) [declaring plaintiff a “vexatious litigant”], and we see no basis for certiorari review. See Baldwin v. Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc., 45 So.3d 118, 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding orders granting protective order are reviewable by certiorari only where there is a demonstration of irreparable harm), review denied, 55 So.3d 1288 (Fla.2011); Favreau v. Favreau, 940 So.2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (holding order prohibiting wife from further pro se filings was not final appealable order, was not one of non-final orders listed in rule 9.130, and certiorari review available only where departure from essential requirements of law resulting in irreparable injury is demonstrated); Bared & Co. v. McGuire, 670 So.2d 153, 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (holding appellate court lacks jurisdiction to exercise certio-rari review in the absence of irreparable harm). To the extent review of order (2) [granting motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and affording plaintiff leave to amend] is sought, the appeal is dismissed as this court lacks jurisdiction to review this non-final, non-appealable order. See, e.g., Liebman v. Miami-Dade Cnty.Code Compliance Office, 54 So.3d 1043, 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding orders granting motion to dismiss and affording leave to amend are non-final, non-appealable).

Dismissed.

CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 So. 3d 537, 2013 WL 1440198, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neptune-v-boncroft-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack