BELL v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE (2019)

Henry Bell appeals an order dismissing his negligence claim against the Jacksonville Transit Authority. We find no error in the trial court's dismissal of the claim on statute of limitations grounds. The claim, asserted for the first time against the JTA in the amended complaint, was untimely and did not relate back to the claims asserted in the original complaint against the City of Jacksonville, a separate and distinct legal entity. See Patel v. Sch. Bd. of Volusia Cty., 813 So.2d 135, 136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (finding that the county and the county school board were not sufficiently related to justify application of the relation-back doctrine).

Bell also appeals a separate order granting partial summary judgment to the City of Jacksonville. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(k) (providing that partial final judgments are reviewable either on appeal from the partial final judgment or on appeal from the final judgment in the entire case); Roessler v. Novak, 858 So.2d 1158, 1160 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). This portion of the appeal is dismissed as untimely. See, e.g., Wagner v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 249 So.3d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (“Timely filing of the notice of appeal is jurisdictional.”).

Affirmed in part and Dismissed in part.

Per Curiam.

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