Court Opinion

ID: 9408300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-12 14:05:07.987687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:43.205037
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                          Opinion filed July 12, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-1603
                       Lower Tribunal No. 21-14017
                          ________________

                         Skybus Jet Cargo, Inc.,
                               Appellant,

                                     vs.

                         ACA International, LLC,
                                Appellee.

     An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Jose M. Rodriguez, Judge.

     Aero Law Center, and Jonathan A. Ewing and Tami A. Trimming (Fort
Lauderdale), for appellant.

      Shutts & Bowen LLP, and Aleksey Shtivelman and Aliette D. Rodz, for
appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and SCALES and MILLER, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Appellant Skybus Jet Cargo, Inc. (“Jet Cargo”), the defendant below,

seeks appellate review of the trial court’s July 22, 2022 nonfinal order that

summarily denied its July 14, 2022 motion to dismiss the complaint filed by

the plaintiff below, appellee ACA International, LLC (“ACA”). Jet Cargo’s

notice of appeal alleges that this Court has appellate jurisdiction to review

the nonfinal order pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure

9.130(a)(3)(A) and (a)(3)(C)(i).

      While ACA has not filed a motion to dismiss Jet Cargo’s appeal with

this Court, before reaching the merits of any appeal, we are required to

conduct an independent jurisdictional inquiry. See City of Sweetwater v.

Pichardo, 314 So. 3d 540, 542 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2020). Because the trial court’s

unelaborated order denying Jet Cargo’s dismissal motion is not contained in

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)’s schedule of appealable,

nonfinal orders, we lack appellate jurisdiction to review the challenged order

and, therefore, we dismiss this appeal. 1

1
  In determining whether we have appellate jurisdiction to review a nonfinal
order under rule 9.130(a)(3), “this Court looks to the four corners of the
challenged order, not the arguments made in the underlying motion.” Truist
Bank v. De Posada, 307 So. 3d 824, 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). For this reason
alone we dismiss the appeal. We note, though, that even if our jurisdictional
determination included review of the underlying motion, we would still
dismiss this appeal because Jet Cargo’s dismissal motion alleged only that
ACA’s complaint failed to state a cause of action. Moreover, the transcript
from the July 22, 2022 hearing on Jet Cargo’s dismissal motion does not

                                      2
      Appeal dismissed.

reflect any other rationale for the motion that, if it had been properly reflected
in the challenged order, would form a permissible basis for us to exercise
appellate jurisdiction under rule 9.130(a)(3).

                                        3