Court Opinion

ID: 9881871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 15:19:16.407123+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:20.167127
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                        Opinion filed October 4, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D21-1828
                      Lower Tribunal No. 10-5191 SP
                          ________________

           The Responsive Auto Insurance Company,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

               Oasis Diagnostic Center, etc., et al.,
                                 Appellees.

     An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Milena
Abreu, Judge.

      The Vaccaro Law Firm, P.A., and Charles L. Vaccaro (Davie), for
appellant.

     Berger & Hicks, P.A., and Martin I. Berger and Zachary A. Hicks; Kula
& Associates, P.A., and Elliot B. Kula, W. Aaron Daniel and William D.
Mueller, for appellee Sunset Radiology, Inc.

Before EMAS, SCALES and LINDSEY, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      The Responsive Auto Insurance Company, defendant below, appeals

several orders of the trial court involving defendants Oasis Diagnostic Center

and Sunset Radiology, Inc.

      As to Oasis Diagnostic, we dismiss the appeal as one taken from

nonfinal, nonappealable orders. See Lidsky Vaccaro & Montes, P.A. v.

Morejon, 813 So. 2d 146, 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (noting “the law is settled

that an order which merely grants a motion for summary judgment and does

not otherwise contain the traditional words of finality is not a final order

subject to appellate review. An order granting only summary judgment

merely establishes an entitlement to a judgment, but is not itself a

judgment.”) (internal citations omitted).

      As to those final orders on appeal involving Sunset Radiology, we find

no error and affirm. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) (previous version of the rule,

applicable here, provided: “The motion must state with particularity the

grounds upon which it is based and the substantial matters of law to be

argued and      must   specifically   identify   any   affidavits,   answers   to

interrogatories, admissions, depositions, and other materials as would be

admissible in evidence (“summary judgment evidence”) on which the movant

relies. The movant must serve the motion at least 20 days before the time

fixed for the hearing, and must also serve at that time a copy of any summary

                                       2
judgment evidence on which the movant relies that has not already been

filed with the court. The adverse party must identify, by notice served

pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516 at least 5 days prior

to the day of the hearing if service by mail is authorized, or delivered,

electronically filed, or sent by e-mail no later than 5:00 p.m. 2 business days

prior to the day of the hearing, any summary judgment evidence on which

the adverse party relies”); Hunt v. SCI Funeral Servs. of Fla., LLC, 307 So.

3d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).        See also Applegate v. Barnett Bank of

Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979).

      Dismissed in part, affirmed in part.

                                      3