MIAMI-DADE MEDICAL CENTERS, INC., AS ASSIGNEE OF RAUL FIAFE, PETITIONER,
v.
MGA INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida appellate court quashed dismissal of appeal for failure to timely file initial brief where the court had not given fair warning that dismissal would result from late filing.
An appeal cannot be dismissed for failure to timely file an initial brief unless the court has given fair warning in advance that dismissal may result from late filing.
[1] An appellate court may not dismiss an appeal for failure to timely file an initial brief without first providing fair warning that dismissal will result from late filing.
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 great weight of Florida authority holds that the failure to file an initial brief by the deadline is not sufficient cause to justify dismissal of the appeal, unless there has been fair warning, in advance, that this consequence may flow from a late filing.”
Court citing United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Total Rehab & Med. Ctr. to establish the legal standard for dismissal based on late brief filing.
Miami-Dade Medical Centers, Inc., as assignee of Raul Fiafe, appealed a decision but failed to file its initial brief timely. The Appellate Division d…
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 Fair Warning Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We grant Miami-Dade Medical Centers, Inc.’s petition for writ of certiorari and quash the order of the Circuit Court Appellate Division dismissing its appeal.
The Appellate Division dismissed petitioner’s appeal for failure to file its initial brief. As the respondent correctly asserts, the dismissal of petitioner’s appeal was preceded by three dismissal motions, all premised on petitioner’s failure to file the brief timely. However, none of the Appellate Division’s extension orders indicated that no further extensions would be allowed, or contained any equivalent language. “[T]he great weight of Florida authority holds that the failure to file an initial brief by the deadline is not sufficient cause to justify dismissal of the appeal, unless there has been fair warning, in advance, that this consequence may flow from a late filing.” United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Total Rehab & Med. Ctr., 870 So. 2d 866, 869 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)(en banc); Lindsey v. King, 894 So. 2d 1058, 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Hence, as in United Auto. Ins. Co., 870 So. 2d at 868, petitioner “had no fair warning that dismissal could result from failure to file the appellant’s initial brief by the deadline.... ” We are therefore forced to “conclude that there has been a departure from the essential requirements of law, as the law in this area is well-established.” Id. at 869.
Certiorari granted; order quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
I Creatives, Inc. v. Premier Printing Solutions, Inc., 163 So. 3d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…that dismissal of an appeal without a prior notice warning of imminent dismissal is a denial of due process. See, e.g., Nicaragua Trader Corp. v. Alejo Fla. Props., LLC, 19 So. 3d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Miami-Dade Med. Ctrs., Inc. v. MGA Ins. Co., 908 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Total Rehab & Med. Ctr., 870 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410 authorizes an appellate court to dismiss a case on its own motion, but only after ten-days’ notice war…
-
Windhaven Ins. Co. v. Biscayne Rehab Ctr., Inc., 243 So. 3d 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…cedural due process and we "conclude that there has been a departure from the essential requirements of law, as the law in this area is well-established." United Auto. Ins. Co., 870 So. 2d at 869 ; accord Miami-Dade Med. Ctrs., Inc. v. MGA Ins. Co., 908 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Accordingly, Respondents' confession of error is well taken. Therefore, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari, quash the order of dismissal, and remand for reinstatement of the appeals. Petition granted; order quashed.…
Authorities Cited
- Pascual v. State, 870 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Lindsey v. Merrill King and Priscilla King, 894 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)