Case ID: so3d_255/html/0506-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LOGUE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WD 19790, LLC, Appellant, v. DAN TRUST, et al., Appellees.
    No. 3D18-1664
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed October 3, 2018
    Stok Folk + Kon, and Robert A. Stok and Joshua R. Kon, for appellant.
    Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen & Levine, P.L., and Abbey L. Kaplan and Josh M. Rubens, for appellees.
    Before EMAS, LOGUE, and LUCK, JJ.
    ON MOTION TO DISMISS
   LOGUE, J.

The order dismissing Count VI of Appellant's Second Amended Counterclaim is not an appealable order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k) as "a separate and distinct cause of action that is not interdependent with other pleaded claims" because Count VI alleges abuse of process on the basis that the Appellees' Third Amended and Supplemental Complaint "is a sham and seeks de minimis, nominal and/or technical damages, if any, without a reasonable prospect of success." This allegation is intertwined with the litigation still pending in the trial court concerning the legal and factual merits of that Complaint. See, e.g., Bardakjy v. Empire Inv. Holdings, LLC, 239 So.3d 146, 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). Accordingly, Appellees' motion to dismiss is granted.

Appeal dismissed.