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

Order granting a motion for entry of default judgment determining liability is not appealable

38 Fla. L. Weekly D2510a


Civil procedure — Appeals — Jurisdiction — Non-final
orders — Order granting motion for entry of default judgment as to liability
only is a non-final, non-appealable order — This type of order was expressly
removed from the list of appealable non-final orders — Appeal dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction

AMMY M. KOGAN, Appellant, vs. MICHAEL MILDENBERGER, Appellee. 3rd District.
Case No. 3D12-1787. L.T. Case No. 12-13713. Opinion filed November 27, 2013. An
appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County,
Victoria Platzer, Judge. Counsel: Ammy M. Kogan, in proper person. Bressler,
Amery & Ross, P.C., and Alex J. Sabo, Jonathan C. Schwartz and Leonel
Peraza, Jr. (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.
(Before WELLS, LAGOA and FERNANDEZ, JJ.)

ON MOTION TO DISMISS


(PER CURIAM.) Appellee, Michael Mildenberger (“Mildenberger”) moves to
dismiss the appeal filed by Appellant, Ammy Kogan (“Kogan”). Mildenberger
contends that the order on appeal is a non-final, non-appealable order and that
this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. We agree.
On June 15, 2012, Mildenberger filed a Motion for Entry of Default Judgement
against Kogan pursuant to Rule 1.500(b), Florida Rule of Civil Procedure. On
June 27, 2012, the trial court entered an order granting Mildenberger’s Motion
for Entry of Default Judgment against Kogan as to liability only, and Kogan
appeals from this order.
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3) authorizes interlocutory
review of a limited number of non-final orders. Rule 9.130 “is designed to
reduce the number of appealable pretrial orders and to discourage piecemeal
review. Given this objective, the courts have narrowly construed the scope of
the rule so that it applies only to the orders it identifies as appealable
orders.” Cotton States Mut. Ins. v. D’Alto, 879 So. 2d 67, 69 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2004) (citations omitted). Appeals of non-final orders determining the issue
of liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief were previously
appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv). See
Doctor’s Hosp. of Hollywood, Inc. v. Madison,
411 So. 2d 190, 191 (Fla.
1982). “However, that provision of Rule 9.130 was deleted, effective January 1,
2001, so orders determining the issue of liability now ‘are not appealable until
the conclusion of the case.’ ” Fascetti v. Fascetti, 795 So. 2d 1094,
1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoting Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 (Committee Notes, 2000
Amendment)). No remaining section of Rule 9.130 allows for an immediate appeal
of the instant order.
Here, Kogan appeals the trial court’s entry of a Default Judgment on the
issue of liability. The order at issue, however, does not bring an end to the
litigation below. Because this type of order was expressly removed from the list
of appealable non-final orders included in Rule 9.130, we grant the motion and
dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Westwood One, Inc.
v. Flight Express, Inc.
, 940 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (dismissing
appeal of trial court’s non-final order granting motion for default for lack of
jurisdiction).
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