HENRY TIEN v. TAX COLLECTOR (2023)

Pro se Appellant's response to Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction is noted.

Upon consideration of Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction, it is ordered that the above-styled appeal is hereby dismissed as one taken from a non-final, non-appealable order. See U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Rodriguez, 206 So. 3d 734, 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (noting that an order dismissing a complaint without prejudice is generally not a final, appealable order but explaining that “this general rule is not without exception. If a dismissal is ‘without prejudice’ but it is clear from the context of the record that the plaintiff's right to pursue the case requires the filing of a new case, the order is final.”); see also Jamerson v. Dixon, 346 So. 3d 699, 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (citing Rodriguez and explaining that “nothing in the record indicat[es that] Jamerson would not be able to proceed with an amended complaint in his current case.”). Nothing in the record before us indicates that the trial court would not permit an amendment. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice.

Appellee's Motion to Strike is hereby denied as moot.

FERNANDEZ, C.J., and SCALES and BOKOR, JJ., concur.