Case Name: WD 19790, LLC, Appellant, v. DAN TRUST, et al., Appellees.
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2018-10-03
Citations: 255 So. 3d 506
Docket Number: No. 3D18-1664
Parties: WD 19790, LLC, Appellant,
v.
DAN TRUST, et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before EMAS, LOGUE, and LUCK, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 255
Pages: 506–506

Head Matter:
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

Opinion:
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.