CARRIER v. MILLER (2025)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Shelley CARRIER, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Doris Hadcock, Appellant, v. Joyce MILLER, individually and in her official capacity as an employee of Department of Children and Families, Angela Rachel, individually and in her official capacity as an employee of Department of Children and Families, and Department of Children and Families, Appellees.

No. 1D2023-2458

Decided: February 05, 2025

J. Ronald Denman, Grant W. Kindrick, Victoria M. McLaughlin and Lawrence O. Held of Bleakley Bavol Denman & Grace, Tampa, for Appellant. Jeffrey S. Weiss and Erin J. O'Leary of Garganese, Weiss, D'Agresta & Salzman, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees.

Shelley Carrier, as personal representative of Doris Hadock's estate, seeks review of two orders that resulted in the dismissal with prejudice of her complaint and her amended complaint. We DISMISS as untimely the appeal of the September 2022 order as it applied to Joyce Miller and Angela Rachel because it was a partial final order that dismissed all claims against Miller and Rachel with prejudice. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(k) (explaining that “[i]f a partial final judgment totally disposes of an entire case as to any party, it must be appealed within 30 days of rendition”); Davis v. State, 336 So. 3d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction where the notice of appeal was not timely filed); CJS Sols. Grp., LLC v. Simmons, 248 So. 3d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (holding that an order disposing of an entire case against a party is immediately appealable even if other claims remain pending against other parties).

We AFFIRM the September 2022 and August 2023 orders dismissing with prejudice Carrier's claims against the Department of Children and Families (DCF). The claims in the original complaint against DCF were barred by the statute of limitations, which was never tolled. See §§ 95.11(3), (7); 95.031; 95.051(1)(d), (i), Fla. Stat. (2021). And the allegations in the amended complaint against DCF did not state a claim for a private cause of action. See Lewis v. Morgan, 79 So. 3d 926, 930 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (holding that a plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend a complaint when the plaintiff will not be able to state a cause of action).

Dismissed, and Affirmed.

Per Curiam.

Rowe, Ray, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network