Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2014

Furstace v. Migdall

Furstace v. Migdall
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided October 24, 2014 · Berger, Evander, Palmer
161 So. 3d 559; 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17404; 2014 WL 5392965 (Southern Reporter, Third Series)

Furstace v. Migdall

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Furstace and Joseph Galuszka appeal from an order granting Allan Mig-dall’s motion to dismiss their second amended complaint. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court’s order did not reflect that the dismissal was “with prejudice,” nor did it otherwise suggest that Appellants were precluded from seeking relief under an alternative theory. See Jim Macon Bldg. Contractors v. Lake Cnty., 763 So.2d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); EIR, Inc. v. Elec. Molding Corp., 540 So.2d 260 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PALMER, EVANDER, and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.