| Classification |
NOA Final - Circuit Civil - Other
|
| Court |
4th District Court of Appeal
|
| Originating Court |
Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County
CACE21-021002
|
Parties
| Name |
Dino Mohebbi
|
| Role |
Appellant
|
| Status |
Active
|
| Representations |
Alexis Fields
|
|
| Name |
PRO-FRAME CONTRACTING, INC.
|
| Role |
Appellee
|
| Status |
Active
|
| Representations |
Michael F Suarez, Christopher M Utrera, Barbara Elizabeth Fox
|
|
| Name |
William W Haury, Jr.
|
| Role |
Judge/Judicial Officer
|
| Status |
Active
|
|
| Name |
Broward Clerk
|
| Role |
Lower Tribunal Clerk
|
| Status |
Active
|
|
| Name |
BANA CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC.
|
| Role |
Appellee
|
| Status |
Active
|
| Representations |
Robert Emmett Anderson, Jr.
|
|
Docket Entries
| Docket Date |
2024-10-01
|
| Type |
Order
|
| Subtype |
Order on Motion for Rehearing
|
| Description |
ORDERED that, upon consideration of appellee Bana Construction Services, Inc.'s September 20, 2024 response and appellee Pro-Frame Contracting, Inc.'s September 25, 2024 Amended Notice of Joinder in Response, appellant's September 5, 2024 motion for rehearing is denied.
KLINGENSMITH, C.J, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
|
| View |
View File
|
|
| Docket Date |
2024-09-25
|
| Type |
Notice
|
| Subtype |
Notice of Joinder in Filing
|
| Description |
Amended Notice of Joinder in Bana Construction's Response to the Motion for Rehearing
|
| On Behalf Of |
Pro-Frame Contracting, Inc.
|
|
| Docket Date |
2024-09-24
|
| Type |
Order
|
| Subtype |
Order Striking Filing
|
| Description |
ORDERED that Appellee Pro-Frame Contracting, Inc.'s September 20, 2024 notice of joinder is stricken as not in compliance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.045, which became effective January 1, 2021, in that it is a computer-generated document which does not comply with the font requirements set forth in Rule 9.045(b). See Fla. R. App. P. 9.045(b) ("Computer-generated documents shall be filed in either Arial 14-point font or Bookman Old Style 14-point font."). An amended document in compliance with Rule 9.045 shall be filed within two (2) days from the date of this order.
|
| View |
View File
|
|
| Docket Date |
2024-09-20
|
| Type |
Notice
|
| Subtype |
Notice of Joinder in Filing
|
| Description |
Notice of Joinder in Filing
|
| On Behalf Of |
Pro-Frame Contracting, Inc.
|
|
| Docket Date |
2024-09-20
|
| Type |
Response
|
| Subtype |
Response
|
| Description |
Response to Appellant's Motion for Rehearing and/or Clarification
|
| On Behalf Of |
Bana Construction Services, Inc.
|
|
| Docket Date |
2024-09-05
|
| Type |
Post-Disposition Motions
|
| Subtype |
Motion for Rehearing
|
| Description |
Motion for Rehearing and/or Clarification of the Order Dismissing the Appeal
|
|
| Docket Date |
2024-08-28
|
| Type |
Response
|
| Subtype |
Response
|
| Description |
Appellee, Pro-Frame Contracting, Inc's, Response to Appellant's Brief Statement of Jurisdiction
|
| On Behalf Of |
Pro-Frame Contracting, Inc.
|
|
| Docket Date |
2024-08-28
|
| Type |
Record
|
| Subtype |
Appendix
|
| Description |
Amended Appendix
|
| On Behalf Of |
Pro-Frame Contracting, Inc.
|
|
| Docket Date |
2024-08-28
|
| Type |
Notice
|
| Subtype |
Notice of Appearance
|
| Description |
Notice of Appearance
|
| On Behalf Of |
Bana Construction Services, Inc.
|
|
| Docket Date |
2024-08-27
|
| Type |
Order
|
| Subtype |
Order Striking Filing
|
| Description |
ORDERED that Appellee's appendix is stricken as not in compliance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.220(c), which was amended effective October 1, 2017, in that it was not filed as one document, beginning with the cover sheet as page 1 and contains no bookmarks as required by Rule 9.220(c)(3). An amended appendix in compliance with Rule 9.220(c) shall be filed within two (2) days from the date of this order.
|
| View |
View File
|
|
| Docket Date |
2024-08-27
|
| Type |
Notice
|
| Subtype |
Notice of Appearance
|
| Description |
Notice of Appearance
|
| On Behalf Of |
Pro-Frame Contracting, Inc.
|
|
| Docket Date |
2024-08-27
|
| Type |
Record
|
| Subtype |
Index
|
| Description |
Index to Appendix
|
| On Behalf Of |
Pro-Frame Contracting, Inc.
|
|
| Docket Date |
2024-08-27
|
| Type |
Response
|
| Subtype |
Response
|
| Description |
Appellee, Pro-Frame Contracting, Inc's Response to Appellant's Brief Statement of Jurisdiction
|
| On Behalf Of |
Pro-Frame Contracting, Inc.
|
|
| Docket Date |
2024-08-19
|
| Type |
Record
|
| Subtype |
Appendix
|
| Description |
Appendix to Jurisdictional Brief
|
| On Behalf Of |
Dino Mohebbi
|
|
| Docket Date |
2024-08-17
|
| Type |
Brief
|
| Subtype |
Jurisdictional Brief
|
| Description |
Jurisdictional Brief
|
| On Behalf Of |
Dino Mohebbi
|
| View |
View File
|
|
| Docket Date |
2024-08-06
|
| Type |
Miscellaneous Document
|
| Subtype |
Pay Case Filing Fee-300
|
| Description |
Pay Case Filing Fee-300
|
| On Behalf Of |
Dino Mohebbi
|
| View |
View File
|
|
| Docket Date |
2024-07-31
|
| Type |
Letter
|
| Subtype |
Acknowledgment Letter
|
| Description |
Acknowledgment Letter
|
| View |
View File
|
|
| Docket Date |
2024-07-31
|
| Type |
Notice
|
| Subtype |
Notice of Appeal
|
| Description |
Notice of Appeal
|
|
| Docket Date |
2024-08-30
|
| Type |
Disposition by Order
|
| Subtype |
Dismissed
|
| Description |
ORDERED that, upon consideration of appellant's August 16, 2024 jurisdictional brief and appellee's August 28, 2024 response, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Mendez v. W. Flagler Fam. Ass'n, 303 So. 2d 1, 5 (Fla. 1974) ("We adhere to the rule that piecemeal appeals should not be permitted where claims are legally interrelated and in substance involve the same transaction."); Perry v. Perry, 976 So. 2d 1151, 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) ("The test to determine whether counts of a multi-count complaint are so interrelated as to preclude a piecemeal appeal is whether the counts arise from a set of common facts or a single transaction, not whether different legal theories or additional facts are involved in separate counts."); Midstate Hauling Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 189 So. 2d 826, 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966) ("It has been held that the dismissal of a complaint, although final in form, which left pending a [compulsory] counterclaim was not appealable.").
KLINGENSMITH, C.J., GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
|
| View |
View File
|
|
| Docket Date |
2024-08-06
|
| Type |
Order
|
| Subtype |
Order to File Response re Jurisdiction
|
| Description |
ORDERED that, within ten (10) days from the date of this order, Appellant shall file in this court a brief statement explaining the basis for this court's subject matter jurisdiction over the order appealed in this case, citing supporting legal authorities. Appellant shall specifically address how the June 28, 2024 order is a final appealable order, as the order does not appear to determine the merits of the claims or enter judgment for or against a party, it states that the dismissal is without prejudice, and it states that the counterclaim "shall remain active and pending," indicating that further judicial labor is anticipated. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110; see also Al-Hakim v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 161 So. 3d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) ("Generally, when an order dismisses a complaint 'without prejudice,' that language signifies that the order is not a final order."); Bushweiler v. Levine, 476 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (dismissing appeal from an order dismissing case without prejudice because it failed to contain "magic words demonstrating finality" and did not qualify under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 as an appealable non-final order); Hinote v. Ford Motor Co., 958 So. 2d 1009, 1010 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) ("An order that dismisses an action 'without prejudice' may or may not be a final order depending on whether it unequivocally disposes of the case."); Caufield v. Cantele, 837 So. 2d 371, 375 (Fla. 2002) ("A final judgment is one which ends the litigation between the parties and disposes of all issues involved such that no further action by the court will be necessary."); Mendez v. W. Flagler Fam. Ass'n, 303 So. 2d 1, 5 (Fla. 1974) ("We adhere to the rule that piecemeal appeals should not be permitted where claims are legally interrelated and in substance involve the same transaction.")
|
| View |
View File
|
|
|
