UNISOURCE DISCOVERY INC v. STEVEN CERASALE (2023)

Appellants’ Response to Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss the Appeal is noted.

On May 19, 2022, the trial court entered a non-final order denying, without prejudice, Appellants’ motion for leave to file an amended counterclaim naming, among other defendants, Unisource Discovery, LLC. This May 19th order determined that Appellants’ “proposed Amended Counterclaim does not establish personal jurisdiction over ․ Unisource Discovery, LLC.” Several months later, on November 14, 2022, Appellants, citing alleged fraud on the court related to Unisource Discovery, LLC's Florida activities, filed a motion for sanctions in the trial court seeking, inter alia, “entry of an Order reconsidering or reversing the May 19, 2022, Court Order denying Counter-plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend to include Unisource Discovery, LLC.” In an unelaborated December 19, 2022, order, the order that Appellants seek to appeal, the trial court denied Appellants’ motion for sanctions, without prejudice. Arguing that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the challenged order, Appellees filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal.

While not entirely clear, it appears that, in response to Appellees’ dismissal Motion, Appellants argue that the challenged order is tantamount to an appealable non-final order determining the jurisdiction of the person. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i). As stated, though, the challenged order denies Appellants’ sanctions motion; the order does not determine whether the trial court has personal jurisdiction over Unisource Discovery, LLC. See Odeh v. Odeh, 347 So. 3d 376, 377–78 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021).

Similarly, this Court is unable to treat the challenged order as an appealable order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(5), i.e., an order that denies “an authorized and timely motion for relief from judgment” filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, because the May 19th order from which Appellants’ motion for sanctions seeks relief was a non-final order. See Hialeah Hotel, Inc. v. Woods, 778 So. 2d 314, 315–16 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“Rule 1.540 applies only to final judgments, not to interlocutory orders. ․ Thus, the present appeal is not properly viewed as an appeal from an order denying Rule 1.540 relief.”) (internal citations omitted); Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5).

This Court, therefore, lacks jurisdiction to review the challenged order, and grants Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss Appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

SCALES, LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ., concur.