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
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

November 4, 2016 by admin

Appeals — Appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review non-appealable interlocutory order denying motion for reconsideration of order denying motion to quash service of process

41
Fla. L. Weekly D2456b
Top of Form

Appeals
— Appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review non-appealable interlocutory
order denying motion for reconsideration of order denying motion to quash
service of process

PETER
M. VUJIN, Appellant, vs. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, As Trustee, etc.,
Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D16-1684. L.T. Case No. 14-31994. Opinion
filed November 2, 2016. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County,
Migna Sanchez-Llorens, Judge. Counsel: Peter M. Vujin, in proper person.
Buckley Madole, P.C., and J. Chris Abercrombie (Tampa), for appellee.

(Before
WELLS, SHEPHERD and SCALES, JJ.)

ON
APPELLANT’S MOTION SEEKING REHEARING,

CLARIFICATION,
AND CERTIFICATION

OF
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(PER
CURIAM.) While the abbreviated record before this Court is unclear, it appears
that Peter M. Vujin, the Appellant and defendant below, was served via
publication in this foreclosure case. Appellant apparently filed a motion to
quash service and, on January 27, 2016, the trial court conducted a hearing and
entered an order denying Appellant’s motion without prejudice. According to
Appellant, this January 27, 2016 appealable, non-final order1 was not served on Appellant until
March 16, 2016, obviously too late for Appellant to have timely appealed this
order.2

Again,
while not entirely clear from the record, it appears that, on March 23, 2016,
Appellant filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the trial court’s January
27, 2016 order. The trial court denied this motion for reconsideration on June
15, 2016, for reasons apparently articulated at the June 15th hearing (the
transcript has not been provided to us). Appellant has sought to appeal this
June 15th order. After providing the parties with an opportunity to brief the
jurisdictional issue, we dismissed Appellant’s appeal because we lack
jurisdiction to review this June 15th non-appealable interlocutory order. Stok
v. Cabrera,
774 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (Mem); Fla. R. App. P.
9.130(a)(3).

We,
therefore, deny Appellant’s instant motion seeking rehearing, clarification and
certification of our dismissal order.

__________________

1See
Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i).

2Appellant
is not precluded from challenging this order at the conclusion of the case. See
Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(h).

* *
*

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business losses — Business interruption — All-risk commercial policy providing coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to” property or “direct physical loss or damage to” property does not insure against losses and expenses incurred by business as result of COVID-19 — Under Florida law there is no coverage because COVID-19 did not cause tangible alteration of the insured properties
  • Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business income losses — Trial court’s finding that policy covering loss of business income due to the suspension of operations caused by “direct physical loss or damage to property” required some tangible alteration to insured property comported with common meaning of its terms and context of policy as a whole — Policy did not cover economic losses insured suffered when it suspended its operations due to COVID-19 pandemic — No error in dismissing with prejudice insured’s petition for declaratory relief and damages
  • Torts — Negligent security — Sovereign immunity — Agency — Limited immunity — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Action brought against company which contracted with county to provide security services and its employee — Defendant company was entitled to limited sovereign immunity under 768.28(5) where county asserted a degree of control over defendant’s employees — Fact that defendant’s employee was working alone rather than side-by-side with county employees did not change level of control county had over defendant employee as evidenced by contract between county and defendant — Absolute immunity under section 768.28(9) applied to defendant employee, but did not apply to defendant company because it is a corporation — No abuse of discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint to add count for punitive damages where record is devoid of evidence that defendant employee engaged in intentional misconduct or gross negligence
  • Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Assignee’s action against insurer to recover payment for construction work performed on insured property following hurricane damage — Court adopts magistrate’s report and recommendation concluding that Section 627.7152(10), Florida Statutes, which repeals assignee’s standing to recover attorney’s fees under section 627.428, does not apply in instant case where both issuance of policy and assignment agreement predated effective date of statute — Whether relevant date for purposes of applying statute is date policy was issued or date assignment agreement was entered into need not be resolved under circumstances — Motion to strike plaintiff’s claims for attorney’s fees is denied
  • Torts — Dog bite — Negligence — Sheriffs — Sovereign immunity — Action alleging deputy sheriff was negligent in handling K-9 that bit plaintiff while attending a public event — Trial court erred in dismissing complaint against sheriff on ground that action was barred by sovereign immunity — Although a plaintiff may not rely on section 767.04 when suing a state agency for a dog bite because it is a strict liability statute, a plaintiff may bring such a suit in common-law negligence — Complaint adequately stated a cause of action for negligence under common law principles — Court rejects argument that plaintiff placed himself in zone of risk by approaching area occupied by deputy and police dog, and that because deputy did not move in proximity to plaintiff there was no zone of risk created by conduct of deputy — Deputy created the zone of risk by patrolling the venue with his K-9 — Whether the deputy was walking around or standing still was irrelevant — Because plaintiff was in a public location he had the right to walk where he wanted, including right up to the deputy, and, unless warned by the deputy to move away, plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that the dog would not bite him — Lawsuit was not barred by sovereign immunity where, although the decision to patrol the public venue with K-9s may have been a discretionary function, the act of patrolling the venue with K-9s was operational

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 © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982