Santana v. Florida International University
| Decision Date | 11 January 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D05-834.,3D05-834. |
| Citation | 922 So.2d 242 |
| Parties | Armando C. SANTANA, Appellant, v. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, etc., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Armando C. Santana, in proper person.
Vernis & Bowling and Patrick H. Gonyea, Miami, for appellees.
Before SHEPHERD, SUAREZ and ROTHENBERG, JJ.
Armando C. Santana ("Santana") appeals the trial court's order dismissing counts one and two of his six-count second amended complaint with prejudice. We dismiss this appeal and do not reach the merits as it is taken from a nonfinal order.
Santana filed suit against the Florida International University ("FIU") for declaratory and injunctive relief after it denied his application to law school. The court dismissed, with prejudice, Counts I and II which allege that he was denied admission based on his membership in a protected class, and that the rejection violated his rights under the education clause of the Florida Constitution. The court dismissed Santana's four remaining counts with leave to amend. The action remains pending in the lower court.
We dismiss this appeal because it was taken from a nonfinal non-appealable order. Piecemeal appeals from nonfinal orders are not permitted where "claims are interrelated and involve the same transaction and the same parties remain in the suit." S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So.2d 97, 99 (Fla.1974). Whether an order is final and appealable depends upon "whether the order in question constitutes an end to the judicial labor in the cause, and nothing further remains to be done by the court to effectuate a termination of the cause as between the parties directly affected. . . ." Id. That is, an appealable final order disposes of all the issues in the case.
Here, Santana attempts to appeal the dismissal of two counts of a six-count complaint. Although he bases each count on different legal theories, they all relate to FIU's rejection of his law school application, they all involve the same parties — Santana and the law school — and the action is still pending between the same parties in the court below. Therefore, the order is not final, the appeal is premature and would result in piecemeal appeals. S.L.T. Warehouse, 304 So.2d at 97 (); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Epstein
...Anderson's appeal of the dismissal of Counts I, III, IV and V concerns a non-final, non-appealable order. See Santana v. Fla. Int'l Univ., 922 So.2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) ; Perry v. Schlumbrecht, 724 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ; Biasetti v. Palm Beach Blood Bank, Inc., 654 So.2d 237, 23......
-
Atrium Med. Corp. v. MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC
... ... to Article V, Section 4(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution, a ... district court entertains "appeals, that may be ... affected."); Santana v. Fla. Int'l Univ., ... 922 So.2d 242, 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) ... ...
-
Milbourn v. KW Prop. Mgmt., LLC
...Procedure 9.110, and it is not a non-final order appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. See Santana v. Fla. Int'l Univ., 922 So.2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) ; One Thousand Oaks, Inc. v. Dade Sav. & Loan Assoc., 417 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). We thus grant the Appellee......
- Santana v. Florida Intern. University, College of Law, SC06-784
-
Review of nonfinal orders - an exception to the requirement of finality.
...2d 97, 99 (Fla. 1974). (5) McQuaig v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 789 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 2001). (6) Santana v. Florida Int'l Univ., 922 So. 2d 242, 243 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2006); One Thousand Oaks, Inc. v. Dade Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 417 So. 2d 1135, 1136 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1982); see also C......