Wednesday, October 2, 2013

3d DCA Watch -- Poncho and Lefty Strike Again!



Day One of the Post-Schwartz Bunker era and the coffee is being swilled at half-speed in honor of this momentous occasion.

The big news is this opinion dismissing the Miccosukee Tribe's petition seeking review of a non-final discovery order on timeliness grounds!

Here's the legal issue in a nutshell:
In their motion to dismiss, Respondents argue the motion for reconsideration (filed July 23, 2013) was not an authorized motion because it sought reconsideration of a non-final order. See Caulfield v. Cantele, 837 So. 2d 371, 376 n.3 (Fla. 2002); Bak v. Bak, 110 So. 3d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). As a result, the motion for reconsideration neither suspended rendition of the July 15th order nor tolled the thirty-day time period for filing the instant petition. Caulfield, 837 So. 2d at 376; LaCarrere v. Reilly, 987 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

Petitioner concedes that the motion for reconsideration was not an authorized motion and did not suspend rendition or toll the time for filing the petition, but contends, nevertheless, that the petition was filed in a timely manner. Petitioner argues it was entitled to an additional five days to file the petition because the July 15th order was e-mailed to Petitioner’s counsel. For this proposition, Petitioner relies upon Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.514(b), which provides:
(b) Additional Time after Service by Mail or E-Mail. When a party may or must act within a specified time after service and service is made by mail or e-mail, 5 days are added after the period that would otherwise expire under subdivision (a).
Petitioner misconstrues this rule. The additional five-day time period applies when another rule requires a party to act within a specified time after service. Rule 2.514(b) affords no additional time when a rule (in this case rule 9.100(c)(1)) requires a party to act within a specified time after rendition of an order. See e.g., Bell v. U.S.B. Acquisition Co., 734 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 1999); Turner v. State, 557 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Bouchard v. State, Dep’t of Bus. Regulation, 448 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Ouch!

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

They should have just written:

"30 days from an Order, you shall appeal or say no more. 5 days extra for service, do not help you appeal a jurist.

Cert. Denied.

P.S. Fees to Appellants"

Anonymous said...

Your boys are on a streak SFL.

Anonymous said...

The Tribe's lawyers are obviously committing malpractice. The irony is amazing.

If they had an informed client, theyd be fired. And sued.

They are in big trouble.

Anonymous said...

Tribe needs to hire real lawyers.

I wonder what these HACKS have bilked the tribe for all the failed litigation?

Anonymous said...

Sounds like the Tribe's lawyers need to retain personal counsel, if they haven't already.

Anonymous said...

I have always been partial to Townes's version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtzgwNDZAs4

South Florida Lawyers said...

1:48 -- HUGE Townes fan. His melancholy, knowing voice coupled with his wit and weary delivery made him a special talent.