Skop v. P3 Group, L.L.C.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Skop v. P3 Group, L.L.C.

67 So. 3d 1194, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 13345, 2011 WL 3687400

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 24, 2011

Docket3D10-2827

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 67 So. 3d 1194 (Skop v. P3 Group, L.L.C.) 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

Skop v. P3 Group, L.L.C., 67 So. 3d 1194, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 13345, 2011 WL 3687400 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

LAGOA, J.

The appellant, Michael W. Skop (“Skop”), filed a second amended complaint against the appellees, P3 Group, L.L.C. (“P3 Group”), and its guarantor, Hypower, Inc., asserting claims for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation, and seeking to retain earnest money deposits and to obtain amounts purportedly due under an Agreement and Assignment. P3 Group counterclaimed, asserting claims for rescission, conversion, declaratory relief, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. Skop seeks review of the trial court’s order dismissing his second amended complaint. Because we find that the trial court’s order was not a final, appealable order, the appeal is dismissed.

A review of the record reveals that the claims asserted in Skop’s second amended complaint are inextricably intertwined with P3 Group’s pending counterclaims. As such, appellate review of the order, under this circumstance, is premature. See S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So.2d 97 (Fla.1974); Arthur v. Smith, 8 So.3d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Marinich v. Special Edition Custom Homes, LLC, 1 So.3d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Belle Isle Assocs., Inc. v. Nine Island Ave. Condo. Ass’n, 990 So.2d 1176 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Accordingly, we grant the appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The dismissal, however, is without prejudice to any party’s later appeal from a final, appealable order.

Appeal dismissed.

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

LAGOA, J.

The appellant, Michael W. Skop (“Skop”), filed a second amended complaint against the appellees, P3 Group, L.L.C. (“P3 Group”), and its guarantor, Hypower, Inc., asserting claims for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation, and seeking to retain earnest money deposits and to obtain amounts purportedly due under an Agreement and Assignment. P3 Group counterclaimed, asserting claims for rescission, conversion, declaratory relief, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. Skop seeks review of the trial court’s order dismissing his second amended complaint. Because we find that the trial court’s order was not a final, appealable order, the appeal is dismissed.

A review of the record reveals that the claims asserted in Skop’s second amended complaint are inextricably intertwined with P3 Group’s pending counterclaims. As such, appellate review of the order, under this circumstance, is premature. See S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So.2d 97 (Fla.1974); Arthur v. Smith, 8 So.3d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Marinich v. Special Edition Custom Homes, LLC, 1 So.3d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Belle Isle Assocs., Inc. v. Nine Island Ave. Condo. Ass’n, 990 So.2d 1176 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Accordingly, we grant the appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The dismissal, however, is without prejudice to any party’s later appeal from a final, appealable order.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 So. 3d 1194, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 13345, 2011 WL 3687400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skop-v-p3-group-llc-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack