United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Active Spine Centers, LLC
Docket: No. 3D04-1403
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; April 20, 2005; Florida; State Appellate Court
A writ of certiorari was sought by United Automobile Insurance Company (United Auto) to challenge the Circuit Court Appellate Division's order that dismissed its appeal due to untimely filing of its initial brief. The case stems from a personal injury protection (PIP) action in Miami-Dade County Court, where United Auto had been an unsuccessful defendant. The initial brief was due on January 10, 2004, but the Circuit Court granted an extension until February 9, 2004. Instead of filing the brief, United Auto submitted a motion to consolidate related proceedings and a motion to supplement the record. The consolidation motion was granted, but the motion to supplement remained pending. On March 2, 2004, the opposing party, Active Spine, filed a motion to dismiss United Auto's appeal for failure to file the brief on time. This motion was granted on March 26, 2004, despite the pending motion to supplement. The court's review was limited to whether procedural due process was afforded and if the correct law was applied, emphasizing that a mere legal error does not warrant certiorari relief. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.300(b) indicates that the service of a motion tolls the proceedings until the motion is resolved. Since the motion to supplement was not governed by the exceptions outlined in the rule, it effectively tolled the deadline for filing the initial brief. Citing established case law, the court determined that there had been a departure from essential legal requirements. Consequently, the petition for certiorari was granted, and the dismissal order was quashed. The ruling reinforced the principle that applying the correct law equates to observing the essential requirements of law.