Delgado v. J. Byrons, Inc.
| Decision Date | 07 July 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D03-3766.,4D03-3766. |
| Citation | 877 So.2d 822 |
| Parties | Roxana DELGADO, Appellant, v. J. BYRONS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Mark K. Koenig of the Law Offices of Mark K. Koenig, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Steven M. Pincus of C. Brooks Ricca, Jr. & Associates, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Roxana Delgado sued J. Byrons, Inc. for negligence in 1997. Following a contentious period of discovery, J. Byrons filed a Renewed Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Pleadings and For Sanctions based on discovery violations. The trial court granted the motion. J. Byrons then sought both attorney's fees based on a proposal for settlement and entry of final judgment. The trial court awarded attorney's fees and entered a final judgment. Delgado appeals both the order granting the motion to strike and dismissing the cause and the final judgment granting attorney's fees. We dismiss the appeal as to the issues raised regarding the motion to strike, and affirm as to the award of attorney's fees.
Delgado raises three issues on appeal. In the first issue, Delgado asserts that the trial court erred by granting J. Byrons's motion to strike. The order granting the motion to strike was entered on February 13, 2003, and stated: "ORDERED and ADJUDGED that said Motion is hereby GRANTED; Plaintiff's pleadings are stricken and cause dismissed w/o prejudice." The notice of appeal was not filed until after the September 9, 2003 final judgment awarding attorney's fees. J. Byrons maintains that Delgado cannot seek review of this order because she did not timely appeal.
Philip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice § 21.2 (2d ed.1997); see also Silvers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 763 So.2d 1086, 1086-1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(case against one defendant was dismissed "without prejudice to plaintiff's refiling a separate suit," and such an order is a final, appealable order); Martinez v. Collier County Pub. Sch., 804 So.2d 559, 560 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)("Dismissal without prejudice is final if its effect is to bring an end to judicial labor.").
In the case at bar, the dismissal of Delgado's cause ended the judicial labor as to her case and required her to file a new action to re-initiate proceedings. However, Delgado would have been unable to do so because the four-year statute of limitations for negligence had run. See § 95.11(3)(a), Fla....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holden v. Bober
...of sections 766.201 to 766.212 was with prejudice because the statute of limitations had passed); see also Delgado v. J. Byrons, Inc., 877 So.2d 822, 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“Although the phrase ‘without prejudice’ ordinarily indicates that an order is not final, there is one circumstance ......
-
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Mestre
...is clearly final when, for instance, the claim could only be pursued by filing a new complaint....” (citing Delgado v. J. Byrons, Inc., 877 So.2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) )); Silvers v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 763 So.2d 1086, 1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“The fact that the dismissal is not with ......
-
Valcarcel v. Chase Bank U.S. Na
...by filing a new complaint....” Hinote v. Ford Motor Co., 958 So.2d 1009, 1010 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (citing Delgado v. J. Byrons, Inc., 877 So.2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)). Chase has not cited any case which holds otherwise. Therefore, Chase's argument that the order was not final is totally w......
-
Pipeline Constructors, Inc. v. Transition House, Inc.
...another, separate action ends the judicial labor in the first action and is thus an appealable final order. Delgado v. J. Byrons, Inc. , 877 So.2d 822, 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) ; Carlton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 621 So.2d 451, 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Additionally, where the new action wou......