Background
Carlos Enrique Luna Lam and Iglesia Cristiana Casa de Dios sued Univision Communications, Inc., related Univision entities, and reporter Gerardo Reyes for defamation. In 2022, the circuit court denied Univision’s motion to dismiss the operative complaint under Florida’s Anti-SLAPP statute. At the time, that nonfinal ruling was not immediately appealable, and the Third District dismissed Univision’s petition for certiorari review.
In March 2025, the Florida Supreme Court amended Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 to permit interlocutory appeals from nonfinal orders denying Anti-SLAPP motions. Univision later filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings raising substantially the same Anti-SLAPP arguments. The circuit court found the new motion substantively identical to the earlier motion, unsupported by good grounds, and interposed for delay. It struck the motion under Rule 2.515 rather than deciding its merits. Univision appealed and separately sought certiorari and mandamus relief.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Rule 9.130(a)(3)(J) authorizes an interlocutory appeal from an order that denies an Anti-SLAPP motion, but the circuit court’s order struck Univision’s motion without adjudicating its merits. Because an order striking a motion under Rule 2.515 is not among the appealable nonfinal orders listed in Rule 9.130, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review it as an interlocutory appeal.
The court also denied certiorari and mandamus relief. The 2025 rule amendment did not retroactively entitle Univision to reassert its previously rejected Anti-SLAPP arguments merely to obtain interlocutory review. The circuit court retained authority under Rule 2.515 to strike a successive motion found to lack good grounds and to have been filed for delay, and it had no ministerial duty to grant or deny the motion on its merits. The majority declined to speculate that the circuit court acted to thwart appellate review, relying instead on the reasons stated in its order. Judge Logue concurred in dismissing the appeal but dissented from denying certiorari, reasoning that striking the motion to prevent an authorized interlocutory appeal departed from the essential requirements of law.
Key Takeaways
- Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(J) permits interlocutory review of an order denying an Anti-SLAPP motion, not an order striking one without reaching the merits.
- The 2025 amendment creating that appellate remedy did not give Univision a right to relitigate a previously rejected Anti-SLAPP argument through a substantively identical successive motion.
- A trial court may use Rule 2.515 to strike a motion lacking good grounds or interposed for delay, and mandamus does not compel the court to grant or deny such a motion on its merits.
Why It Matters
The decision draws a jurisdictional distinction between denying and striking an Anti-SLAPP motion. Even when denial would permit an immediate appeal, a Rule 2.515 order striking the motion falls outside the enumerated categories of appealable nonfinal orders.
The ruling also limits efforts to use the 2025 appellate-rule amendment to revive Anti-SLAPP arguments already adjudicated before the amendment. The court noted, however, that Univision may still raise the statute in a later summary-judgment motion and immediately appeal if that motion is denied.