APPEALS ARISING FROM THE NEW FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Appellate Practice Section ������������������������ ����������������������������������������������������� �������������������
The majority of rulings that implement the new rule amendments will not be immediately appealable.
Appellate jurisdiction is generally limited to reviewing final orders and those non-final orders specifically contained in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130’ s schedule of appealable, non-final orders. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030( b); Fla. R. App. P. 9.130( a)( 3); Adweiss Lllp v. Daum, 367 So. 3d 1264, 1265( Fla. 3d DCA 2023). Thus, the majority of rulings that implement the new rule amendments will not be immediately appealable. Further, trial courts are vested with considerable discretion in managing their pre-trial dockets and determining what is“ good cause” or“ excusable neglect” or sanctionable conduct. See Barton Protective Servs. v. Redmon, 387 So. 3d 353( Fla. 3d DCA 2023). Thus, in the absence of a ruling that would support certiorari review, interlocutory orders that apply the new rules will not be subject to immediate appeal.
However, sanction orders that require immediate payment are final orders that can be immediately appealed. FCCI Com. Ins. v. Empire Indem. Ins., 250 So. 3d 858( Fla. 2d DCA 2018).
To preserve the record for the final appeal, attorneys should ensure that there is sufficient information in the record to show the court abused its discretion. At a minimum, the motion should clearly state why a deadline was missed, why an act was not in bad faith, or what happened that constitutes excusable neglect. Filing supporting documentation, such as emails, letters, affidavits, and other similar material is highly recommended. If the court is conducting an evidentiary hearing, then the attorney must ensure that the record contains admissible evidence( not just argument and unverified, unauthenticated documents) that addresses the various nuances of the standard.
Florida’ s standard for certiorari review has not changed with the advent of the new rules. Thus, a ruling on a‘ proportionality’ objection( whether granting or denying) can still be reviewed, provided the attorney can meet the certiorari standard, which requires showing:( 1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law,( 2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case,( 3) that cannot be corrected on post-judgment appeal. Williams v. Oken, 62 So. 3d 1129, 1132( Fla. 2011).
Orders permitting discovery of privileged or“ cat out of the bag” material are frequently addressed on certiorari review. Bath & Kitchen Boutique v. Little, 390 So. 3d 44( Fla. 3d DCA 2023). However, orders denying motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment are not. See Citizens Prop. Ins. v. San Perdido Ass’ n, 104 So. 3d 344, 354( Fla. 2012). Orders permitting discovery despite a proportionality objection will likely be reviewed under the same standard as the former“ unduly burdensome” standard. See Cmtys. Fin. Co. v. Bjork, 987 So. 2d 231, 232( Fla. 4th DCA 2008)( Klein, J., specially concurring). Certiorari review of orders denying discovery might be granted, if the order denied a litigant the right to take testimony of a material witness. Travelers Indem. Co. v. Hill, 388 So. 2d 648( Fla. 5th DCA 1980). �
Author: Dorothy V. DiFiore – Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P. A.
Did You Know... You can update your own contact information with HCBA in your online member profile at hillsbar. com.
�� ��������������� ��������������