Jedak Corp. v. Seabreeze Office Assoc.

Citation: 248 So. 3d 242Docket: 5D16-3777

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; May 21, 2018; Florida; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, filed an interim non-dispositive opinion regarding the appeal by Jedak Corporation d/b/a Razzle's against Seabreeze Office Associates, LLC and Neil Hunter. The court addressed a motion from Seabreeze seeking to vacate a prior order, stay the issuance of a mandate, and accept an amended motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc. Seabreeze's counsel filed an "emergency" motion for an extension of time, despite the automatic tolling of deadlines due to the motion's filing, implying a lack of awareness of procedural rules.

The panel noted the urgency expressed by Seabreeze's counsel and their subsequent filing of a motion for clarification, rehearing, or rehearing en banc, which was accepted as timely. The panel denied the requests for clarification and rehearing, finding no merit in the arguments. The rehearing en banc request was struck down for lack of legal sufficiency, as it failed to meet the standards outlined in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.331(d)(1) and did not specify conflicting decisions as required by rule 9.331(d)(2). The motion's references to controlling law were deemed insufficient, as it cited a Third District case already addressed by the panel and a secondary source without proper relevance.

The representation made by Appellee that the panel opinion conflicted with “controlling law” and the certification from counsel regarding conflicts with other decisions of the Court were found to be false. Rule 9.331(b) mandates counsel's certification to prevent misuse, placing the ethical responsibility on them to ensure compliance. Following the Court's decision on Appellee's motion for clarification, rehearing, or rehearing en banc, Appellee filed a new motion seeking to vacate previous orders and reconsider its earlier requests, claiming “extraordinary circumstances.” Appellee argued that the initial motion was filed in haste and that the Court's delay in addressing a time extension led to further complications. 

Appellee attributed the perceived urgency to an alleged conversation with the Clerk’s office, which was deemed implausible as motions are circulated among judges electronically. An internal review of the Clerk’s office found no recollection of such a conversation. The need for a hurried motion was attributed to counsel’s unfamiliarity with the tolling provision of rule 9.300(b), rather than any misinformation from the Clerk. Consequently, Appellee's motion for relief was denied, and the amended motion was stricken for violating rule 9.330(b) as it was filed without permission and was uninformative, essentially rearguing previous points. The addition of a claim of “exceptional importance” was insufficient to warrant en banc review under Florida rules, as Appellee did not contest the correctness of the precedent relied upon by the panel, which concluded that Appellee failed to demonstrate that the alleged breach caused any damages. The assertion of meeting the standard for “exceptional importance” was found to be unfounded.

Counsel for Appellee, Thomas A. Valdez, is required to submit a written explanation within five days regarding why sanctions should not be imposed under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, and the Court's inherent authority due to violations of rule 9.331 and for filing what the Court deems a frivolous motion. The Court retains the right to mandate personal appearance by counsel if the explanation is unsatisfactory. Appellant is not to respond unless directed by the Court or unless permission to do so is granted. It is reiterated that the clerk’s office does not provide legal advice or predict the timing or content of the Court's rulings, and requests for such information from the clerk’s office are discouraged. Written rulings are provided by the Court, which may be communicated orally only under certain circumstances. The Court has denied the motions and has issued a show cause order. Judges Cohen, Palmer, and Torpy concur.