Background
Supreme Organics, LLC sued the Town of Southwest Ranches for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The circuit court’s Uniform Trial Order required dispositive motions to be filed and heard at least 45 days before calendar call and deemed motions not heard by then abandoned. The Town did not initially plead sovereign immunity as an affirmative defense.
After the dispositive-motion deadline, the Town filed a summary-judgment motion asserting sovereign immunity for the first time. Supreme Organics moved to strike the motion as untimely and prejudicial. The circuit court granted that request but expressly stated that the Town was not prohibited from raising immunity later if properly raised. The Town appealed, arguing that the order effectively denied sovereign immunity and was immediately appealable.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The majority held that the circuit court had not denied a motion asserting entitlement to sovereign immunity within the meaning of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(F)(iii). Instead, the circuit court merely declined to hear an untimely summary-judgment motion and did not decide the immunity defense on its merits.
Because the order expressly preserved the Town’s ability to raise immunity at trial, the majority concluded that it was a nonfinal, nonappealable order. Judge Lott dissented, reasoning that striking the motion had the same practical effect as denying it and that the current language of rule 9.130 permits immediate review of an order denying any motion asserting sovereign immunity, regardless of whether the denial rests on timeliness or the merits.
Key Takeaways
- An order striking an untimely summary-judgment motion is not immediately appealable as a denial of sovereign immunity when the trial court does not reach the defense’s merits.
- The circuit court’s express preservation of the Town’s ability to raise immunity later supported the conclusion that no appealable immunity ruling had occurred.
- The dissent would have treated the order according to its practical effect and exercised jurisdiction under rule 9.130(a)(3)(F)(iii).
Why It Matters
The decision narrowly construes Florida’s rule authorizing interlocutory appeals of sovereign-immunity rulings. Government defendants cannot necessarily obtain immediate appellate review merely because a procedurally rejected motion invoked sovereign immunity; the trial court must have denied a motion in a manner falling within the rule’s limited authorization.
The divided opinion also highlights an unresolved tension between the formal characterization and practical effect of an order striking an immunity-based motion. Litigants should timely plead and present immunity defenses rather than rely on interlocutory review after missing case-management deadlines.