Pratt's Office Supplies, Inc. v. Bird Bowl Invesments

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pratt's Office Supplies, Inc. v. Bird Bowl Invesments

565 So. 2d 795, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5270, 1990 WL 102678

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 24, 1990

DocketNo. 89-1641

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 565 So. 2d 795 (Pratt's Office Supplies, Inc. v. Bird Bowl Invesments) 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

Pratt's Office Supplies, Inc. v. Bird Bowl Invesments, 565 So. 2d 795, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5270, 1990 WL 102678 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

FERGUSON, Judge.

This appeal is brought from a summary judgment entered for a lessor on two of three counts of a complaint and for the lessor’s construction company on all counts. The causes of action are all based on financial losses allegedly suffered by the appellant, a lessee in a shopping center, owing to physical damages to the leased premises, and business interruption suffered in the course of renovations to the premises.

We agree with the trial court that the appellee, AAV Construction Company, one of two contractors on the site, has demonstrated conclusively that the damages suffered by the appellant were not caused by its operations, and that it is entitled to a summary judgment as a matter of law. See Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla.1985) (the party moving for summary judgment must show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact). No competent counter-evidence was presented sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. Zabrani v. Riveron, 495 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

We dismiss, without prejudice, the appeal from that part of the summary judgment which disposes of two of the three counts against the lessor, Bird Bowl Investments, as it is conceded that those counts are not separate and distinct from the surviving count. Piecemeal appeal is not permitted where surviving claims are legally interrelated and in substance involve the same transaction. Mendez v. West Flagler Family Ass’n, Inc., 303 So.2d 1 (Fla.1974); Mang v. Country Comfort Inn, Inc., 559 So.2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (order dismissing only some of the counts against one defendant was not final as to that defendant and reviewing court did not have jurisdiction to consider it).

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

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

FERGUSON, Judge.

This appeal is brought from a summary judgment entered for a lessor on two of three counts of a complaint and for the lessor’s construction company on all counts. The causes of action are all based on financial losses allegedly suffered by the appellant, a lessee in a shopping center, owing to physical damages to the leased premises, and business interruption suffered in the course of renovations to the premises.

We agree with the trial court that the appellee, AAV Construction Company, one of two contractors on the site, has demonstrated conclusively that the damages suffered by the appellant were not caused by its operations, and that it is entitled to a summary judgment as a matter of law. See Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla.1985) (the party moving for summary judgment must show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact). No competent counter-evidence was presented sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. Zabrani v. Riveron, 495 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

We dismiss, without prejudice, the appeal from that part of the summary judgment which disposes of two of the three counts against the lessor, Bird Bowl Investments, as it is conceded that those counts are not separate and distinct from the surviving count. Piecemeal appeal is not permitted where surviving claims are legally interrelated and in substance involve the same transaction. Mendez v. West Flagler Family Ass’n, Inc., 303 So.2d 1 (Fla.1974); Mang v. Country Comfort Inn, Inc., 559 So.2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (order dismissing only some of the counts against one defendant was not final as to that defendant and reviewing court did not have jurisdiction to consider it).

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

565 So. 2d 795, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5270, 1990 WL 102678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pratts-office-supplies-inc-v-bird-bowl-invesments-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack