← Case library
4th DCASeptember 23, 2026Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction🔬 Novel Issue

Town of Southwest Ranches v. Supreme Organics, LLC

Case No. 4D2025-3556

A town filed an untimely summary judgment motion asserting sovereign immunity for the first time; the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion to strike it as violating the uniform trial order, while stating the town could still properly raise immunity. The Fourth District held the striking order did not 'deny a motion that asserts entitlement to sovereign immunity' under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(F)(iii) and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Judge Lott dissented, arguing that striking is functionally a denial and that the 2020 amendment to Rule 9.130 was intended to eliminate reliance on the trial court's labeling.

Key facts

  • Town of Southwest Ranches filed a summary judgment motion asserting sovereign immunity, but the motion was submitted after the deadline set by the trial court's uniform trial order.
  • The trial court granted the defendant town's motion to strike the untimely summary judgment motion, though the court stated the town could still properly raise the sovereign immunity defense later in the proceedings.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

Government defendants and their opponents now have Fourth District authority that a trial court's refusal to entertain an untimely sovereign-immunity summary judgment motion is not immediately appealable — a meaningful… — full analysis with a trial

🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.

Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.