Ultra Aviation Services v. Cruz Clemente , 262 So. 3d 830 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •   Third District Court of Appeal
    State of Florida
    Opinion filed December 5, 2018.
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    ________________
    No. 3D18-1569
    Lower Tribunal No. 17-10537
    ________________
    Ultra Aviation Services, Inc.,
    Appellant,
    vs.
    Lisvan L. Cruz Clemente and Miami-Dade County,
    Appellees.
    An Appeal from a final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
    County, Rodney Smith, Judge.
    Holland & Knight LLP, and Miguel De Grandy and Daniel P. Hanlon, for
    appellant.
    Fairlaw Firm, and Brian H. Pollock; Friedman, Rodman, & Frank, P.A., and
    Elizabeth Estrada and Ronald D. Rodman; Beckham & Beckham, P.A., and
    Pamela Beckham, for appellee Lisvan L. Cruz Clemente.
    Abigail Price-Williams, Miami-Dade County Attorney, and David M.
    Murray, Cynji A. Lee, and Altanese Phenelus, Assistant County Attorneys, for
    appellee Miami-Dade County.
    Before LAGOA, SCALES, and LUCK, JJ.
    LAGOA, J.
    ON MOTION TO DISMISS
    Appellee Lisvan L. Cruz Clemente (“Cruz”) moves to dismiss Appellant
    Ultra Aviation Services, Inc.’s (“Ultra”), appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
    Specifically, Cruz argues that Ultra’s appeal is premature, as the trial court
    continues to exercise jurisdiction over three related claims pled by Cruz that
    involve the Miami-Dade Living Wage Ordinance (the “LWO”), codified in Section
    2-8.9 of the Miami-Dade County Code of Ordinances. We deny Cruz’s motion to
    dismiss.
    In the underlying proceedings, Cruz brought suit against Ultra, alleging that
    Ultra had unlawfully retaliated against him after he voiced complaints to both Ultra
    and Miami-Dade County (“the County”) about Ultra’s purported violations of the
    LWO. After Ultra moved to dismiss Cruz’s complaint on the grounds that the
    LWO was preempted by state law and the LWO’s health plan requirements were
    no longer valid, the County filed an unopposed motion to intervene in the case,
    which the trial court granted.
    The County then filed a complaint against Ultra, alleging two counts for
    declaratory judgment, one count of estoppel, and one count for injunctive relief.
    Specifically, the County requested the trial court to declare that section 218.077,
    Florida Statutes (2017), did not preempt the LWO and that the Florida
    2
    Legislature’s repeal of section 627.6699(12)(a), Florida Statutes, during the 2015
    legislative session did not invalidate the health plan requirements in the LWO.
    After Ultra filed its responsive pleading, Ultra and the County both moved for
    summary judgment. On June 29, 2018, the trial court granted the County’s motion
    for summary judgment as to its two counts for declaratory judgment.          Ultra
    appealed the trial court’s “Final Judgment as to Miami-Dade County’s Third Party
    Complaint” entered on August 15, 2018, which entered judgment in favor of the
    County on its two counts for declaratory judgment, found the County’s count of
    estoppel moot, and noted the County’s voluntary dismissal of its count for
    injunctive relief. On November 1, 2018, Cruz moved to dismiss Ultra’s appeal.
    Cruz contends that because the trial court continues to exercise jurisdiction
    over his three related claims that concern the viability of the LWO, Ultra’s appeal
    of the partial final judgment is premature pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate
    Procedure 9.110(k) and must be dismissed. Rule 9.110(k) provides:
    Except as otherwise provided herein, partial final
    judgments are reviewable either on appeal from the
    partial final judgment or on appeal from the final
    judgment in the entire case. A partial final judgment,
    other than one that disposes of an entire case as to any
    party, is one that disposes of a separate and distinct cause
    of action that is not interdependent with other pleaded
    claims. If a partial final judgment totally disposes of an
    entire case as to any party, it must be appealed within 30
    days of rendition.
    3
    (emphasis added). Here, the trial court’s final judgment totally disposed of the
    case as to the County, as no counts remain below in which the County is a party.
    See Gator Boring & Trenching, Inc. v. Westra Constr. Corp., 
    210 So. 3d 175
    , 180
    (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (“Because the trial court’s orders completely dispose of all
    claims involving Travelers, we have jurisdiction to review Gator’s appeal from the
    dismissal of count II as a partial final judgment in accordance with rule
    9.110(k).”). Because the trial court’s order disposes of all claims involving the
    County, we have jurisdiction to review the partial final judgment pursuant to rule
    9.110(k).
    Accordingly, we deny Cruz’s motion to dismiss Ultra’s appeal.
    Motion to dismiss denied.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-1569

Citation Numbers: 262 So. 3d 830

Filed Date: 12/5/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/5/2018