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
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

February 8, 2018 by admin

Appeals — Partial final judgment — Appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review partial final judgment where interrelated counterclaims remain pending in trial court

43
Fla. L. Weekly D301a

Appeals
— Partial final judgment — Appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review
partial final judgment where interrelated counterclaims remain pending in trial
court

EUGENE BARDAKJY, Appellant, v.
EMPIRE INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC, etc., Appellee. 3rd District. Case No.
3D17-2270. L.T. Case No. 16-5467. February 7, 2018. An Appeal from the Circuit
Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara Areces, Judge. Counsel: Rafool, LLC, and
David R. Hazouri, for appellant. Waldman Barnett, P.L., and Glen H. Waldman and
Benjamin L. Keime, for appellee.
(Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and
LINDSEY, JJ.)
(PER CURIAM.) This is before us on
the motion of Appellee, Empire Investment Holdings, LLC (“Empire”), to dismiss
this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In this appeal, Appellant, Eugene
Bardakjy (“Bardakjy”), appeals the trial court’s order entitled, Final Judgment
Against Plaintiff, Eugene Bardakjy, on His Claim for Breach of Contract,
entered in favor of Empire on Bardakjy’s complaint for breach of contract.
Empire’s counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment
remain pending below. These counterclaims form the basis for Empire’s motion to
dismiss. Bardakjy argues in opposition to the motion to dismiss that Empire’s
counterclaims involve Bardakjy’s alleged conduct as an employee of Empire prior
to his resignation and, thus, involve two distinctly separate and independent
transactions and occurrences.
In its amended counterclaim, Empire
alleged that subsequent to Bardakjy’s resignation, it learned that Bardakjy had
committed acts of negligence and mismanagement with respect to the plan to
redesign and reengineer one of the manufacturing lines at one of the plants
(the “Manufacturing Line Conversion”) and then concealed its complete failure
from Empire. Empire allegedly discovered that the redesign and reengineering of
the Manufacturing Line Conversion was fatally flawed from inception and that
Bardakjy neither sought the consultation of others with the requisite expertise
nor allowed anyone with such expertise who desired to participate to have a
voice.
Empire claimed that Bardakjy
breached his fiduciary duty to Empire by failing to act in good faith and with
the best interests of Empire when designing and implementing the Manufacturing
Line Conversion, and by the reckless design and concealment of its failure.
Empire further claimed that Bardakjy was unjustly enriched by receiving the
severance package in light of his actions with respect to the Manufacturing
Line Conversion. Upon learning of Bardakjy’s failure to perform his duties with
respect to the Manufacturing Line Conversion, Empire rescinded the severance
package and ceased making payments to Bardakjy. Although Bardakjy’s alleged
misconduct was not discovered until his employment had terminated, it
nonetheless involves conduct pre-termination.
Issues and facts related to Empire’s
pending counterclaims, which involve conduct by Bardakjy prior to his
resignation that subsequently resulted in Empire’s rescission of the severance
package, are intertwined with the claims and defenses raised in this appeal. As
such, we conclude that the order on appeal is not a “partial final judgment”
under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k) and, therefore, we dismiss
this premature appeal. See Almacenes El Globo De Quito, S.A. v.
Dalbeta L.C.
, 181 So. 3d 559, 561-62 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (internal citations
omitted) (“Rule 9.110(k) provides for appellate jurisdiction to hear a partial
final judgment only when the claims adjudicated by that order are separate and
independent from the portion of the case still to be adjudicated. If all claims
arise from the same set of facts, an order resolving fewer than all of the
counts is not appealable under Rule 9.110(k).”).
ORDERED that Empire’s Motion to
Dismiss Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted without prejudice to the parties’
rights on appeal after the trial court enters a final judgment on the pending
and interrelated counterclaims.
* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

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 © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982