The Florida Lottery v. Seneca One, LLC, and Rhonda Mortimer-Buckner

243 So. 3d 533
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 4, 2018
Docket17-2836
StatusPublished

This text of 243 So. 3d 533 (The Florida Lottery v. Seneca One, LLC, and Rhonda Mortimer-Buckner) 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
The Florida Lottery v. Seneca One, LLC, and Rhonda Mortimer-Buckner, 243 So. 3d 533 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

No. 1D17-2836 _____________________________

THE FLORIDA LOTTERY,

Appellant,

v.

SENECA ONE, LLC, and RHONDA MORTIMER-BUCKNER,

Appellees. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. Charles Dodson, Judge.

June 4, 2018

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the non-final order under review did not explicitly determine, as a matter of law, that Appellant, The Florida Lottery, was not entitled to sovereign immunity, a point which Appellant concedes. See Fla. Highway Patrol, a Div. of the Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Jackson, 238 So. 3d 430 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (dismissing the appeal filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(xi) where the non-final order being challenged did not explicitly determine, as a matter of law, that the appellant was not entitled to sovereign immunity); see also Fla. Agency for Health Care Admin. v. McClain, 1D16-474, 2018 WL 1833386, at *2 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 18, 2018) (“Because the court here did not explicitly indicate on the face of the order that it was denying sovereign immunity as a matter of law, the order is not appealable.”). The trial court may enter an amended order explicitly stating on its face that Appellant is not entitled to sovereign immunity, if that was the substance of the trial court’s determination. See id. at *3.

DISMISSED.

LEWIS, MAKAR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Rachel Nordby, Deputy Solicitor General, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

W. Mason and Megan A. McNamara of Fox Rothschild, LLP, West Palm Beach, for Appellee Seneca One, LLC.

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

Related

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
243 So. 3d 533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-florida-lottery-v-seneca-one-llc-and-rhonda-mortimer-buckner-fladistctapp-2018.