Florida Department of Corrections v. Schwarz
134 So. 3d 1002
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- DOC asked for reconsideration of an order dismissing its appeal from a PERC June 3, 2011 order granting reinstatement and back pay to five employees, but not amount.
- PERC consolidated five cases (CS-2010-255, -265, -266, -267, -269) and issued a single order reinstating and awarding back pay without setting back-pay amounts.
- The court dismissed the appeal from the June 3, 2011 order on authorities holding that an order determining entitlement but not amount is not final or appealable.
- DOC later revealed that PERC had issued five separate final orders in new dockets (BP-2011-007, -005, -003, -004, -006) determining exact back-pay amounts.
- No notice of appeal was filed naming any of the five final back-pay orders.
- The court held the June 20, 2011 notice of appeal was premature as to the June 3 order but effective as to the final back-pay orders once those final orders were issued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether premature notice of appeal can vest jurisdiction for final orders | DOC contends the appeal was premature and should be dismissed. | DOC argues the final back-pay orders should be reviewable once issued. | Premature notice vested jurisdiction when final orders issued. |
| Finality of back-pay determinations before appeal dismissal | DOC asserted the June 3 order was not a final appealable action on back pay. | DAVIS (the court) reasoned final orders on back pay exist separately. | Final back-pay orders are appealable; the premature notice applied to them. |
| Effect of new back-pay orders in separate dockets on the original appeal | DOC argued new proceedings were unnecessary or duplicative. | The presence of final back-pay determinations supports review of the overall dispute. | Court may review merits of DOC’s appeal in due course on the final orders. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 726 So.2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (finality and appealability of administrative orders)
- SSA Sec. Inc. v. Pierre, 44 So.3d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (formula for calculating back pay not making order final)
- Lazy Days’ RV Ctr., Inc. v. Shepley, 929 So.2d 639 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction when final order not present)
- Dep’t of Corr. v. Saulter, 751 So.2d 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (jurisdictional dismissal principles)
- Hill v. Div. of Ret., 687 So.2d 1376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (finality depends on whether adjudicative process is closed)
- Baron v. Provencial, 908 So.2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (non-final guidance does not finalize damages)
- Abifaraj v. Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass’n, 844 So.2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (expenses not finally determined rendered non-final order)
- Fla. Leisure Acquisition Corp. v. Fla. Comm’n on Human Relations, 639 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (bifurcated liability and damages and review timing)
- State, Dep’t of Corr. v. Smith, 980 So.2d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (viability of Smith as authority)
- Puga v. Suave Shoe Corp., 417 So.2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (treating a notice to appeal as directed to reviewable orders despite defective naming)
- State ex rel. Poe v. Allen, 196 So.2d 745 (Fla.1967) (criteria for adequate notice of appeal)
- Demont v. Demont, 24 So.3d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (abstaining or dismissing jurisdictional defects that are technical)
- Benton v. Moore, 655 So.2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (dismissal of appeal when final order not yet issued)