Opinion
No. 2D22-527.
10-28-2022
Brianna BECK, Appellant, v. James WRIGHT, individually and as trustee of the Kathryn V. Montagnino Trust, Appellee.
SLEET, Judge.
Brianna Beck attempts to appeal the trial court's nonfinal order denying her motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. Because we do not have jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal. On February 8, 2022, Beck filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. The same day, the trial court entered an order denying Beck's motion. On February 17, 2022, Beck filed a notice of appeal challenging the nonfinal order pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.
Although the Florida Supreme Court recently amended rule 9.130 to expand the jurisdiction of the district courts to allow them to hear appeals of nonfinal orders that "grant or deny a motion for leave to amend to assert a claim for punitive damages," it stated that "[t]he amendment shall take effect on April 1, 2022, at 12:01 a.m." In re Amend. to Fla. Rule of App. Proc. 9.130, 345 So.3d 725 (Fla. 2022) (creating subsection (G) of rule 9.130(a)(3)). Here, both the date of the rendition of the order (February 8, 2022) and the date of the notice of appeal (February 17, 2022) were prior to the April 1 effective date of the amendment. Therefore, the version of rule 9.130(a)(3) prior to the amendment controls. See Sarasota Cnty. Pub. Hosp. Dist. v. Venice HMA, LLC, 325 So.3d 334, 339 n.4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (declining to apply the new version of rule 9.130(a)(3) because it was not in effect when the circuit court entered the order at issue or when the county filed its petition with the appellate court). And prior to the amendment, an order denying leave to amend a pleading was considered a nonfinal and nonappealable order. See Traveler v. Steiner Transocean, Ltd., 895 So.2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); see also Hochstadt v. Sanctuary Homeowners Ass'n, 882 So.2d 1094, 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) ("Therefore, the denial of Hochstadt's motions to amend his complaint in that action constitute non-final, non-appealable orders."); Zuppardo v. J.H. Invs., Inc., 300 So.3d 775, 775 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) ("Michael Zuppardo appeals the order denying him leave to amend his pleadings below. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction to review this nonfinal, nonappealable order.").
Furthermore, we cannot convert this direct appeal to a petition for certiorari. Although orders granting leave to amend to add a claim for punitive damages were subject to certiorari review prior to the amendment, orders denying leave to amend were not. See High Five Prods., Inc. v. Riddle, 286 So.3d 890, 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) ("[A]n order denying a motion to add a claim for punitive damages is not reviewable via certiorari because such a denial can be adequately remedied on appeal."); Noack v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 872 So.2d 370, 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ("[C]ertiorari is not available to review the denial of a motion to add a claim for punitive damages because an adequate remedy exists by way of appeal."); Sloan v. Toler, 778 So.2d 1094, 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) ("If the trial court erroneously prohibits a punitive damages claim, the plaintiff may obtain relief by way of appeal at the conclusion of the case."); see also Est. of Esterline v. Avante at Leesburg, Inc., 845 So.2d 1028, 1029-30 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (adopting Sloan).
Accordingly, because at the time Beck filed her notice of appeal an order denying a motion to add a claim for punitive damages was a nonfinal, nonappealable order that also was not reviewable via certiorari, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Dismissed.
NORTHCUTT and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.