Duszlak v. Wands (803 So. 2d 779, 2001)

PER CURIAM.

Having considered the responses to the September 13, 2001, order to show cause, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order on appeal neither dismisses all of the interrelated claims arising from the same set of facts and involving the same parties, nor does it entirely dismiss a party from the litigation. Therefore, the order below is not an ap-pealable partial final judgment. See S.L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So.2d 97, 100 (Fla.1974); Odham v. Mouat, 484 So.2d 95, 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Additionally, the order below is a nonfinal, nonappealable order granting a motion to dismiss that does not enter judgment of dismissal. See Benton v. Moore, 655 So.2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Because no appealable partial final judgment could be entered as long as related claims remain below, the argument that exceptional circumstances exist to warrant delaying dismissal of this appeal to allow additional time to obtain a final order is moot. However, this dismissal is without prejudice to appellant’s right to seek review upon final disposition of the proceedings below. The motion for partial consolidation is denied as moot.

BOOTH, WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ„ CONCUR.