CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, Etc. v. CITY OF MIAMI GARDENS, Etc.
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledJune 10, 2020
Docket3D20-0368
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed June 10, 2020.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D20-368
Lower Tribunal No. 18-42450
________________
City of North Miami Beach, etc.,
Appellant,
vs.
City of Miami Gardens, etc.,
Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Mavel Ruiz, Judge.
Shubin & Bass, P.A., and John K. Shubin, Katherine R. Maxwell, and Ian E.
DeMello, for appellant.
Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A., and Eugene E.
Stearns, Matthew C. Dates, and David T. Coulter, for appellee.
Before SALTER, LOGUE, and GORDO, JJ.
ON MOTION TO DISMISS
LOGUE, J.
This matter comes before us on Appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal as
moot. On appeal, Appellant seeks review of an order denying its motion to dismiss
on the basis of sovereign immunity. While we have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida
Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(F), we agree that this appeal became moot
when, pursuant to another provision of the same order under review, Appellee filed
an amended complaint. As a result, the initial complaint which Appellant asks this
Court to conclude should have been dismissed is no longer operative.
We have previously dismissed appeals under similar circumstances. Falcone
v. Laquer, 132 So. 3d 1171, 1172 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (dismissing an appeal
from an order to deny arbitration under a second amended complaint because it
“became moot when the third amended complaint was filed.”). The same reasoning
applies here. See, e.g., Wilner Hartley & Metcalf, P.A. v. Howard & Assocs., 65 So.
3d 620, 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“The Motion to dismiss the Verified Substitute
Amended Complaint was rendered moot by the trial court’s order allowing the filing
of the Verified Third Amended Complaint.”); Vanderberg v. Rios, 798 So. 2d 806,
807 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (concluding that “the filing of the amended complaint
rendered the legal sufficiency of the original complaint moot.”)
Dismissed.
2