Opinion
No. 2D12–6091.
2013-03-22
Anthony POGRIBNICHENKO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), Appellee/Respondent(s).
BY ORDER OF THE COURT.
The appellant's motion for clarification of February 15, 2013, order to show cause is granted. It appears that the circuit court was not acting in its appellate capacity when it entered the order that the appellant is attempting to appeal. The court vacates its order of February 15, 2013.
Nevertheless, it appears that the appellant filed a “motion for partial relief from order” on July 25, 2012, directed to a nonfinal order of July 6, 2012, denying the appellee's motion for summary judgment. The July 6, 2012, order required the appellant to pay half of the costs of arbitration; and his July 25, 2012, motion sought relief from that order. The circuit court's order of November 1, 2012, denying the motion for partial relief from the order on summary judgment, is the only order from which the appellant's November 30, 2012, notice of appeal would be timely. That order required the appellant to pay half of the arbitration costs within 45 days of the date of the order, failing which the case would be set for hearing on the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and “the dispute between the parties will be resolved in the County Court of Hillsborough County.”
An order denying a motion for summary judgment is not an immediately appealable order; nor is an order requiring a party to pay some costs of arbitration while a case remains pending in the circuit court. Furthermore, the appellant's motion for relief from judgment did not suspend rendition of the (nonappealable) nonfinal order of July 6, 2012. See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Whyham, 455 So.2d 650, 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Thus, the order entered on November 30, 2012, is not appealable pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(5).
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.