Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 3, 2018.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D18-1664
Lower Tribunal No. 16-25037
________________
WD 19790, LLC,
Appellant,
vs.
Dan Trust, et al.,
Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Thomas J.
Rebull, Judge.
Stok Folk + Kon, and Robert A. Stok and Joshua R. Kon, for appellant.
Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen & Levine, P.L., and Abbey L. Kaplan
and Josh M. Rubens, for appellees.
Before EMAS, LOGUE, and LUCK, JJ.
ON MOTION TO DISMISS
LOGUE, J.
The order dismissing Count VI of Appellant’s Second Amended
Counterclaim is not an appealable order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure
9.110(k) as “a separate and distinct cause of action that is not interdependent with
other pleaded claims” because Count VI alleges abuse of process on the basis that
the Appellees’ Third Amended and Supplemental Complaint “is a sham and seeks
de minimis, nominal and/or technical damages, if any, without a reasonable
prospect of success.” This allegation is intertwined with the litigation still pending
in the trial court concerning the legal and factual merits of that Complaint. See,
e.g., Bardakjy v. Empire Inv. Holdings, LLC, 239 So. 3d 146, 147 (Fla. 3d DCA
2018). Accordingly, Appellees’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Appeal dismissed.
2