Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

December 6, 2013 by Tom

An order determining entitlement to attorneys’ fees without setting amount is not appealable

38 Fla. L. Weekly D2508c


Attorney’s fees — Appeals — Jurisdiction — Non-final
orders — An order finding entitlement to attorney’s fees but not setting an
amount is a non-final, non-appealable order — Appeal dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction

KLING CORPORATION, etc., et al., Appellants, vs. HOLA NETWORKS CORPORATION,
etc., et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case Nos. 3D13-2327 & 3D13-1936. L.T.
Case No. 10-49685. Opinion filed November 27, 2013. Appeals from the Circuit
Court for Miami-Dade County, Marc Schumacher, Judge. Counsel: Cueto Law Group
P.L. and Santiago Cueto; Allen Hyman (North Hollywood, California), for
appellants Kling Corporation and Anthony Kling. Jorge L. Piedra and Gregory R.
Bel, for appellees Hola Networks Corporation and Hispanic Network Group, LLC.
(Before SUAREZ, LAGOA and SALTER, JJ.)

ON MOTION TO DISMISS


(LAGOA, J.) Appellees, Hola Networks Corporation and Hispanic Network Group,
LLC, (collectively “Appellees”) move to dismiss the appeal filed by Appellants,
Kling Corporation, Anthony Kling, and Santiago A. Cueto, Esq., (collectively
“Appellants”). Appellees contend that the orders on appeal are non-final orders
and that this Court, therefore, lacks jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. We
agree.
Appellants appeal from a June 19, 2013 Order granting Appellees’ Motion for
Sanctions (the “Order”), and from a June 19, 2013 Order denying Appellants’
Motion for Rehearing. The Orders at issue expressly state that the amount of
fees to be awarded would be determined at a later date.
An order that merely finds entitlement to attorney’s fees but does not set an
amount is a non-final, non-appealable order. See Alexopoulos v. Gordon
Hargrove & James, P.A.
, 109 So. 3d 248, 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013);
Mills v. Martinez, 909 So. 2d 340, 342 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“An award of
attorneys’ fees does not become final, and, therefore, appealable until the
amount is set by the trial court.”); Chaiken v. Suchman, 694 So. 2d 115,
117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (stating that an order awarding entitlement to attorney’s
fees does not become final until the amount of the fee is set). Nor is such an
order one of the enumerated appealable non-final orders set forth in Florida
Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3).
Because the Orders on appeal do not set the amount of the award, but only
find an entitlement to fees, we grant the Appellees’ motion and dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Motion granted; appeal dismissed.

* * *

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Homeowners — Windstorm loss — Notice of loss — Timeliness — Prejudice to insurer — No error in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer based on determination that insured failed to overcome presumption that insurer was prejudiced by his failure to timely report claim for hurricane damage — Insured failed to act with reasonable dispatch and within a reasonable time where insured waited two years and seven months to report claim of hurricane damage to his roof — Conclusory affidavits submitted by insured in opposition to summary judgment were insufficient to rebut presumption of prejudice where passage of time rendered insurer unable to determine what current damage was directly attributable to the storm — Court rejects argument that policy was ambiguous because it contained a clause imposing a blanket bar on any hurricane-related claim beyond three-year window and a second clause requiring insured to provide prompt notice of any claim — Clauses, when read together, require an insured to file any hurricane-related claim within three years of the storm, and to act swiftly upon discovering damages
  • Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Bad faith — Complaint — Amendment — Addition of claim for punitive damages — Action alleging that insurer violated law by issuing policies without a written rejection form and by accepting verbal rejections of UM coverage — Error to grant insured’s motion for leave to add punitive damages claim where insured failed to provide reasonable basis to find that insurer’s acts occurred with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice, and were willful, wanton, and malicious and in reckless disregard for insured’s rights
  • Consumer law — Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices — Proposal for settlement — Attorney’s fees — Costs — Prevailing party — Where partial summary judgment as to liability was granted in favor of plaintiff, but jury awarded no damages, it was not an abuse of discretion for trial court to deny defendant’s request for attorney’s fees as a prevailing party on Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim — No error in denying fees and costs under proposals for settlement presented to trial court — None of the proposals proffered satisfied strict requirements of section 768.79 and rule 1.442 where proposals required plaintiff to execute a release but failed to describe release with sufficient detail, contained ambiguity as to punitive damages, and required payment from date of settlement without defining such date — Error to deny request for costs under section 57.041 — A zero judgment constitutes a judgment in favor of the defendant for purposes of recovery of costs under the statute
  • Torts — Premises liability — Slip and fall — Discovery — Relevance — Appeals — Certiorari — Order requiring defendant’s corporate representative to address areas of inquiry related to defendant’s corporate-wide operations is quashed — Allowing corporate-wide discovery amounted to carte blanche discovery that results in irreparable harm and departs from essential requirements of the law — Information is not discoverable based on its relevance to show negligent mode of operation because, under section 768.0755, negligent mode of operation is not a viable theory of recovery in slip-and-fall cases
  • Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Bad faith — Complaint — Amendment — Addition of claim for punitive damages — Action alleging that insurer violated law by issuing policies without a written rejection form and by accepting verbal rejections of UM coverage — Error to grant insured’s motion for leave to add punitive damages claim where insured failed to provide reasonable basis to find that insurer’s acts occurred with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice, and were willful, wanton, and malicious and in reckless disregard for insured’s rights

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2023 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982