ARLENE J. DELGADO
v.
JASON MILLER
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.
Arlene Delgado sought a writ of certiorari to quash a trial court's order imposing sanctions, including a requirement that she hire a licensed attorney and restrictions on communicating with the court. The Florida appellate court granted the petition in part, quashing the sanctions because they were imposed without an opportunity to show cause or be heard beforehand.
The court held that the trial court's imposition of sanctions without an order to show cause or an opportunity to be heard constituted a departure from essential requirements of law that caused irreparable harm and therefore quashed those portions of the omnibus order.
[1] Sanctions imposed without notice and an opportunity to be heard constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law.
[2] A trial court's order imposing sanctions that cause irreparable harm to the remainder of a proceeding may be quashed by writ of certiorari.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 imposed sanctions cause irreparable harm for the remainder of the proceeding and constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law by virtue of the fact that no order to show cause issued, and no opportunity to be heard occurred before the imposition of those sanctions”
Establishes the core holding that sanctions cannot be imposed without procedural due process, specifically an order to show cause and opportunity to be heard
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDelgado was a pro se litigant in an ongoing matter. The trial court issued an omnibus order on October 9, 2025, requiring her to hire a Florida Bar-li…
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 Opportunity To Show Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
FERNANDEZ, J. Arlene J. Delgado seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the trial court's order imposing sanctions without allowing her an opportunity to show cause as to why those sanctions should not be imposed. Petitioner seeks a quash on several provisions of the trial court's omnibus order. We agree that the imposed sanctions cause irreparable harm for the remainder of the proceeding and constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law by virtue of the fact that no order to show cause issued, and no opportunity to be heard occurred before the imposition of those sanctions. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999); Humes v. Solanki, 305 So. 3d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).
Specifically, we quash those portions of the trial court's "Omnibus Order on Respondent's Motions ..." rendered on October 9, 2025, as follows:
F. As the Respondent refuses to communicate with the Petitioner's attorney and continues to violate this Court's order of October 26, 2023 (D.E. #2040) she shall hire an attorney licensed with the Florida Bar. The attorney shall file a notice of appearance in thirty (30) days. The Court will take no further action in this matter while the Respondent represents herself as a pro se litigant.
G. The Respondent shall not email or communicate with the Court's judicial assistant. The Respondent shall not email or communicate with the Court. A Florida licensed attorney representing the Respondent may communicate with the Court's judicial assistant. In his response, the Respondent commendably confessed error in this regard. Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the indicated portions of the order listed above. We deny the petition in all other respects.
Petition granted in part; order quashed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Steinberg v. Cudak, 429 So. 3d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)…w cause. It is well-settled that a trial court must provide notice and an opportunity to be heard by issuing an order to show cause before prohibiting pro se filing. See Amatulah v. Palmier, 417 So. 3d 495, 496 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025); Humes v. Solanki, 305 So. 3d 334, 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); Testa v. Testa, 171 So. 3d 244, 244–45 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); Bolton v. SE Prop. Holdings, LLC, 127 So. 3d 746, 747–48 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Jackson v. Parkhouse, 826 So. 2d 478, 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Delgado v. Hearn, 805 S…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Sonnett Humes v. Haresh Solanki, M.D., 305 So. 3d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)