Lifshultz v. 20 Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
Citation | 300 So.3d 1224 |
Decision Date | 04 March 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 3D18-810,3D18-810 |
Parties | David LIFSHULTZ, et al., Appellants, v. The 20 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Appellees. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Arthur J. Morburger, for appellants.
Bushell Law, P.A., and Daniel A. Bushell (Fort Lauderdale), for appellees.
Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and MILLER, JJ.
Appellants, David Lifshultz and 20 South Shore Landowners, Inc. (defendants/counter-plaintiffs below) appeal the trial court's order dismissing with prejudice their fourth amended counterclaim/third-party claim against appellees, The 20 Condominium Association, Inc. ("the Association," plaintiff/counter-defendant below) and Antonio Silva (third-party defendant below). We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Insofar as appellants seek review of the trial court's order dismissing with prejudice the counterclaim against the Association, that order is not appealable as a partial final judgment because the claims asserted against the Association in the counterclaim are either compulsory, see Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.170(a),1 or are otherwise interdependent with the pending claims asserted by the Association in its complaint.2 See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(k) ) See also Koe v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 225 So. 3d 983, 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ( ); Herbits v. City of Miami, 197 So. 3d 575, 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ( ); Almacenes El Globo De Quito, S.A. v. Dalbeta L.C., 181 So. 3d 559, 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) ( ); GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Pruitt, 122 So. 3d 484, 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) ( ).
Rule 9.110(k) is also determinative of our jurisdiction to review the remainder of the trial court's order, which dismissed with prejudice appellants' third-party claims against Antonio Silva. Silva was not a party to the original complaint, but was brought into the case as a third-party defendant when appellants filed their combined counterclaim/third-party claim. As a result of the trial court's dismissal order, Silva is no longer a party to the action below. Because this "partial final judgment totally disposes of an entire case as to" Silva, it is an appealable partial final judgment pursuant to rule 9.110(k). See Phillips v. Ostrer, 442 So. 2d 1084, 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) ( )
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the trial court properly dismissed the fourth amended counterclaim/third-party claim against Silva. In doing so, we note the trial court entered a comprehensive order detailing its findings and concluding that "permitting yet another amendment at this juncture would be both prejudicial and futile." We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination to deny appellants yet another opportunity to amend its fourth amended counterclaim/third-party claim against Silva.
The general rule is that "leave to amend a Complaint should not be denied unless the privilege is abused, the opposing party will be prejudiced, or amendment would be futile." Toscano...
To continue reading
Request your trial