Opinion
No. 4D12–2277.
2013-04-10
Patrick NEPTUNE, Appellant, v. Veronica BONCROFT and Scott Rubinchik, Appellees.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; John B. Bowman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 11–29021 02. Patrick Neptune, Pembroke Pines, pro se. No brief filed for appellees.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; John B. Bowman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 11–29021 02.
Patrick Neptune, Pembroke Pines, pro se. No brief filed for appellees.
STEVENSON, J.
Patrick Neptune has filed a notice of appeal challenging (1) an order granting defendant Rubinchik's motion for protective order as to interrogatories propounded by plaintiff; (2) an order granting defendant Rubinchik's motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and affording plaintiff leave to amend; and (3) an order ruling on defendant Rubinchik's motion to declare plaintiff a “vexatious litigant.” For the reasons which follow, we dismiss this appeal.
The notice of appeal was improper as to orders (1) [granting motion for protective order as to interrogatories] and (3) [declaring plaintiff a “vexatious litigant”], and we see no basis for certiorari review. See Baldwin v. Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc., 45 So.3d 118, 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding orders granting protective order are reviewable by certiorari only where there is a demonstration of irreparable harm), review denied,55 So.3d 1288 (Fla.2011); Favreau v. Favreau, 940 So.2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (holding order prohibiting wife from further pro se filings was not final appealable order, was not one of non-final orders listed in rule 9.130, and certiorari review available only where departure from essential requirements of law resulting in irreparable injury is demonstrated); Bared & Co. v. McGuire, 670 So.2d 153, 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (holding appellate court lacks jurisdiction to exercise certiorari review in the absence of irreparable harm). To the extent review of order (2) [granting motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and affording plaintiff leave to amend] is sought, the appeal is dismissed as this court lacks jurisdiction to review this non-final, non-appealable order. See, e.g., Liebman v. Miami–Dade Cnty.Code Compliance Office, 54 So.3d 1043, 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding orders granting motion to dismiss and affording leave to amend are non-final, non-appealable).
Dismissed.