Narrative Opinion Summary
The appeal is dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction, referencing the precedent set in Perimeter Investments, Inc. v. Amerifirst Development Co. of Central Florida, Inc., which establishes that orders denying motions for leave to file a counterclaim are non-final and non-appealable. The appellees’ motion for an extension of time to file a response brief is denied as moot. Judges Miner, Webster, and Lawrence concur with the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Jurisdiction and Appealability of Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court dismissed the appeal due to lack of jurisdiction, highlighting that orders denying motions for leave to file a counterclaim are considered non-final and non-appealable.
Reasoning: The appeal is dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction, referencing the precedent set in Perimeter Investments, Inc. v. Amerifirst Development Co. of Central Florida, Inc., which establishes that orders denying motions for leave to file a counterclaim are non-final and non-appealable.
Mootness in Procedural Motionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied the appellees' motion for an extension of time to file a response brief as moot because the appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning: The appellees’ motion for an extension of time to file a response brief is denied as moot.