CHRISTINA PAYLAN, M. D.
v.
OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE THIRTEENTH CIRCUIT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the petitioner did not receive adequate notice of the evidentiary hearing.
Yes, the trial court violated Dr. Paylan's due process rights by failing to provide adequate notice of the evidentiary hearing. Therefore, the order denying the petition must be reversed.
[1] A trial court violates a party's constitutional right to notice when it conducts a final evidentiary hearing and decides a petition on the merits at a proceeding that was…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The text of the order setting a case management conference at most gave Dr. Paylan notice that the trial court would consider scheduling and logistics for an evidentiary hearing—among other case management matters listed in the order—not that it would actually conduct a final evidentiary hearing and decide her petition on its merits.”
Establishes the insufficient notice provided to the appellant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Christina Paylan petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel the Office of the State Attorney to produce public records. The trial court scheduled…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Public Records Production cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Christina Paylan appeals from a final order denying her petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Office of the State Attorney for the Thirteenth Circuit to produce public records. The final order was rendered after an evidentiary hearing of which Dr. Paylan is said to have been notified by an order of the trial court
- 2 - scheduling a case management conference under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.200(a).
The text of the order setting a case management conference at most gave Dr. Paylan notice that the trial court would consider scheduling and logistics for an evidentiary hearing—among other case management matters listed in the order—not that it would actually conduct a final evidentiary hearing and decide her petition on its merits.1 Nieradka, 230 So. 3d 962, 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (explaining that a party's due process right to notice is violated when a trial court takes evidence at a hearing not noticed as an evidentiary hearing); Shah v. Shah, 178 So. 3d 70, 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (holding that a trial court violated a party's due process right to notice when it conducted a final hearing at what was noticed as a status conference); Rodriguez v. Santana, 76 So. 3d 1035, 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (holding that a trial court violated a party's due process right to notice when it "conducted a final evidentiary hearing when only a case management conference had been scheduled").
Reversed and remanded. KELLY, SALARIO, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. 1The order stated that the case "will be called up for a Case Management Conference" because "there are compelling reasons for case management for the purpose of judicial review." It further stated that "[m]atters to be considered at the Case Management Conference include matters that may aid in disposition of the action, including, but not limited to: 1. Case Management 2. Pending Status of Case 3. Evidentiary Hearing."
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Candy Lynn Rodriguez v. Santana, 76 So. 3d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Messing v. Nieradka, 230 So. 3d 962 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)