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 order 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 specified Anti-SLAPP motions. Univision later filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings directed to the same complaint. Finding that the new motion was substantively identical to the earlier dismissal motion, unsupported by good grounds, and interposed for delay, the circuit court struck it under Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515 without reaching its merits. Univision both appealed and 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 struck Univision’s motion rather than denying it. 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 directly.
The court also denied certiorari and mandamus relief. It held that the 2025 appellate-rule amendment did not retroactively entitle Univision to reassert an Anti-SLAPP challenge that the circuit court had already rejected in substance. The circuit court did not depart from the essential requirements of law by exercising its rule 2.515 authority 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 from an improper motive, while Judge Logue dissented from the denial of extraordinary relief.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 9.130(a)(3)(J) permits an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a qualifying Anti-SLAPP motion, but not from an order striking such a motion under rule 2.515.
- The 2025 rule amendment did not authorize Univision to relitigate through a substantively identical motion an Anti-SLAPP challenge previously decided against it.
- A trial court has no ministerial duty, enforceable by mandamus, to grant or deny every motion whose denial could produce an appealable nonfinal order.
Why It Matters
The decision draws a procedural distinction between denying and striking an Anti-SLAPP motion: only a denial triggers the interlocutory appellate jurisdiction created by rule 9.130(a)(3)(J). It also confirms that the new avenue for immediate review does not itself eliminate a trial court’s authority to strike successive filings under rule 2.515.
The majority emphasized that its ruling addressed jurisdiction and extraordinary relief, not whether the circuit court’s rule 2.515 findings were correct. It also noted that Univision may still invoke the Anti-SLAPP statute in a later summary-judgment motion and immediately appeal if that motion is denied.