MEDVEND LLC v. INNOVATIONS AVOCARE LLC (2024)

The order appealed grants sanctions and dismisses Appellant's case for fraud on the court. The order reserves jurisdiction for the consideration of fees and costs and directs the clerk to close the file. The order does not, however, address the Appellees/Defendants’ counterclaims that closely relate to the dismissed claims. We conclude that the order is not a final order, an appealable nonfinal order for purposes of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, nor a partial final judgment under Rule 9.110(k). See, e.g., Jensen v. Whetstine, 985 So. 2d 1218, 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (dismissing appeal where the dismissed claim involved the same parties and underlying facts as claims that remained pending); Libman v. Fla. Wellness & Rehab. Ctr., Inc., 260 So. 3d 515, 517-18 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (concluding that an order granting summary judgment on the only claim was not a partial final judgment because related counterclaims remained pending). While we understand the confusion surrounding the trial court's direction to close the file, this action does not resolve Appellees’ pending counterclaims. Presumably, Appellees could have the court reopen the closed file on the counterclaims at any point. Closing a case file in which there are pending unaddressed counterclaims does not constitute a final disposition. Cf., Gomez v. Tamiami Youth Basketball, Inc., 49 Fla. L. Weekly D1705, ––– So.3d ––––, 2024 WL 3800625 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 14, 2024) (concluding that the trial court erred by not reopening a case file where claims and counterclaims remained pending after the dismissal of some parties and claims).

Dismissed.

Per Curiam.

Osterhaus, C.J., and B.L. Thomas and Kelsey, JJ., concur.