Court Opinion

ID: 9907404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 15:03:09.470292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:30.360566
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                              State of Florida

                       Opinion filed December 6, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                              No. 3D23-205
                        Lower Tribunal No. 21-5539
                           ________________

                         Claudia Torres, et al.,
                                 Appellants,

                                     vs.

                    SBE Hotel Group, LLC, et al.,
                                 Appellees.

     An Appeal from non-final orders from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Thomas J. Rebull and Oscar Rodriguez-Fonts, Judges.

     Reyes Lawyers, P.A., and Ibrahim Reyes Gandara, for appellants.

     Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Stefanie R. Phillips, David L.
Luck and Janice Lopez, for appellees.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.

     GORDO, J.
      Claudia and Herman Torres (“Torreses”) appeal two non-final orders

in favor of SBE Hotel Management, LLC, SBE Hotel Group, LLC and SBEEG

Holdings, LLC (collectively, “the SBE Defendants”) asserting they are

appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i). We

find the non-final orders did not determine jurisdiction of the person as

required by rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i), and therefore dismiss the appeal for lack

of jurisdiction.

              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

      The Torreses filed a complaint against the SBE Defendants for injuries

that occurred at the SLS Brickell Hotel but did not name the property owner

at the time of the alleged incident—PRH 1300 S. Miami Avenue, LLC (“PRH

1300”). After the statute of limitations had run, the Torreses filed a motion

for leave to amend the complaint to add PRH 1300 as a defendant. The trial

court entered an order denying the motion to amend finding that the addition

of PRH 1300 was barred by the statute of limitations and the amendment

would not relate back to the filing of the original complaint. Thereafter, the

Torreses filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s order. The trial

court denied the motion. This appeal followed.

                                       2
                             LEGAL ANALYSIS

      Our jurisdiction to review non-final orders is limited to those matters

specifically enumerated in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. Mid-

Continent Cas. Co. v. Flora-Tech Plantscapes, Inc., 225 So. 3d 336, 340

(Fla. 3d DCA 2017). Orders denying leave to amend are not included. See

Hawaiian Inn of Daytona Beach Inc. v. Snead Constr. Corp., 393 So. 2d

1201, 1202 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (stating orders denying leave to amend are

not listed in rule 9.130(a)(3) as non-final orders reviewable by appeal);

Toscano Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. DDA Eng’rs, P.A., 274 So. 3d 487, 489 (Fla.

3d DCA 2019) (“An order denying leave to amend is a non-final and non-

appealable order.” (quoting Traveler v. Steiner Transocean Ltd., 895 So. 2d

1191, 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005))).

      The Torreses rely on rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) to invoke this Court’s

jurisdiction to hear the otherwise non-reviewable interlocutory orders. Rule

9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) provides in relevant part: “Appeals to the district courts of

appeal of nonfinal orders are limited to those that . . . determine . . .

jurisdiction of the person.” Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) (emphasis

added).   “The rule requires that an interlocutory order on appeal must

actually adjudicate and determine the personal jurisdiction issue.” Dexx

Med. Indus., CA v. Fitesa Naotecidos S.A., 346 So. 3d 1215, 1217 (Fla. 3d

                                      3
DCA 2022). “Under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i), ‘jurisdiction of the person’ has

been interpreted as referring to whether the service of process was proper

or whether the long-arm statute has been correctly applied.” Cole v. Posada,

555 So. 2d 367, 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Here, the orders on appeal

address the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations and the relation-

back doctrine. We find no basis to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under rule

9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) because there is no language in the challenged orders

actually adjudicating and determining personal jurisdiction over PRH 1300.

Compare Dexx, 346 So. 3d at 1218 (dismissing the appeals of non-final

orders under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) because the orders did not determine the

issue of jurisdiction), with Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, Inc. v. Mendoza, 193 So. 3d

940, 942 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (finding a non-final order appealable under

rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) because “the order on appeal determined that the trial

court could exercise personal jurisdiction over FIGA”).

      Dismissed.

                                       4