Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
The Local Door Coupons Franchise v. Mayers
Citation: 261 So. 3d 726Docket: 18-2145
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; December 18, 2018; Florida; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Third District Court of Appeal of Florida issued an opinion on December 19, 2018, regarding the appeal of The Local Door Coupons Franchise, Inc. against Eric Mayers. The appeal concerns a non-final order from the Miami-Dade Circuit Court, which required the Corporation to advance legal fees and costs to Mayers amid ongoing litigation. Mayers filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of a specified dollar amount for the fees. The trial court had ruled that the Corporation must cover Mayers' fees related to both the defense against the Corporation's lawsuit and his counterclaims. However, the order did not determine the specific amounts owed. The appellate court stated it lacks jurisdiction to review non-final orders unless they fall under specific categories outlined in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3). The court noted that orders merely determining entitlement to attorney’s fees without a specified amount are deemed non-reviewable. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal as premature due to the lack of a fixed fee determination. The order in question addresses a shareholder's right to advancement of litigation expenses under an indemnification provision in a shareholder agreement, aligning it with orders that entitle a party to attorney's fees without specifying an amount. The court concludes that this order does not resolve Mayers's right to immediate possession of property, distinguishing it from orders that deny such entitlement, which do determine a party’s rights. The ruling clarifies that an order granting entitlement to advancement without specifying an amount lacks the necessary elements for review under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii), as it does not identify specific property or grant immediate possession. The court emphasizes the importance of limiting piecemeal appeals to conserve judicial resources, especially given the increasing case filings in appellate courts. Consequently, allowing review of this order would lead to further appeals if the advancement amount were contested. The court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to review the non-final order, resulting in the dismissal of the Corporation's appeal as premature.