Appellate Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Consider A Pre-judgment Order Striking A Party’s Proposal For Settlement–continuation Of Litigation And Ensuing Costs, Time And Effort In Defending Litigation Does Not Constitute Irreparable Harm.
Florida Peninsula Insurance Co. v. DePorter, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D953 (Fla. 4th DCA April 10, 2019):
While the case does not make clear exactly at what point in the litigation the proposal was stricken, post-judgment orders denying claims for entitlement to attorney’s fees are considered final and appealable because there is no further judicial labor to be done. However, this case involved a pre-judgment denial of a motion for fees, and it did not foreclose the possibility that the party might seek to recover fees via another mechanism “at some point during the litigation.” Pre-judgment orders denying a claim for fees are not final appealable orders.
The court struck the insurer’s proposal for settlement and the insurer took a writ of certiorari. Because the continuation of litigation and any ensuing costs, time and effort in defending the litigation does not constitute irreparable harm, the insurance company did not meet the threshold for certiorari jurisdiction.
NOTE: More interesting about this case is the idea that a party may be able to move to strike a proposal for settlement at some point before final judgment. However, this begs the question about the judge learning of settlement discussions before the case concludes. There is simply not enough in the opinion to ascertain answers to these questions unfortunately.