MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, ETC., PETITIONER,
v.
GUY LEWIS, ESQUIRE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
The Miccosukee Tribe sought certiorari review of a non-final discovery order, but the Florida District Court of Appeal dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction because it was filed 35 days after the order was rendered, exceeding the 30-day deadline required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(c)(1).
The petition was untimely filed and the court lacks jurisdiction to review it. The motion for reconsideration did not toll the 30-day deadline because it was an unauthorized motion seeking reconsideration of a non-final order, and Rule 2.514(b)'s five-day extension applies only when a rule requires action within a specified time after service, not after rendition of an order.
[1] A petition for writ of certiorari must be filed within 30 days of the rendition of the order to be reviewed.
[2] A motion for reconsideration of a non-final order does not suspend rendition of the order or toll the time for filing a petition for 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“a petition for writ of certiorari "shall be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed." This time limit is jurisdictional.”
Establishes the controlling rule and emphasizes the jurisdictional nature of the 30-day deadline.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court rendered an Order Clarifying Fact Discovery Deadline on July 15, 2013. The Miccosukee Tribe filed a motion for reconsideration on July…
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 Tolling Of Time Limits cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida filed a petition for writ of certio-rari, seeking review of a non-final discovery order rendered on July 13, 2013. Respondents Lewis Tein, P.L., Michael R. Tein and Guy A. Lewis filed a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
FACTS
The relevant facts are not in dispute:
1. On July 15, 2013, the trial court rendered an Order Clarifying Fact Discovery Deadline.
2. On July 23, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial Court’s clarification order, and the court denied the motion for reconsideration on July 25, 2013.
3. On August 19, 2013, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, seeking review of the clarification order rendered July 15, 2013.
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(c)(1), a petition for writ of certiorari “shall be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.” This time limit is jurisdictional. § 59.081(2), Fla. Stat. (2013) (providing that failure to timely invoke the jurisdiction of a reviewing court “shall divest such court of jurisdiction to review such cause”); Wibbens v. State, Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 956 So.2d 503 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Hofer v. Gil De Rubio, 409 So.2d 527 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(f) provides that “an order is rendered when a signed, written order is filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal.”
In their motion to dismiss, Respondents argue the motion for reconsideration (filed July 23, 2013) was not an authorized motion because it sought reconsideration of a non-final order. See Canfield v. Cantele, *506837 So.2d 371, 376 n. 3 (Fla.2002); Bak v. Bak, 110 So.3d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). As a result, the motion for reconsideration neither suspended rendition of the July 15th order nor tolled the thirty-day time period for filing the instant petition. Canfield, 837 So.2d at 376; LaCarrere v. Reilly, 987 So.2d 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).
Petitioner concedes that the motion for reconsideration was not an authorized motion and did not suspend rendition or toll the time for filing the petition, but contends, nevertheless, that the petition was filed in a timely manner. Petitioner argues it was entitled to an additional five days to file the petition because the July 15th order was e-mailed to Petitioner’s counsel. For this proposition, Petitioner relies upon Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.514(b), which provides:
(b) Additional Time after Service by Mail or E-Mail. When a party may or must act within a specified time after service and service is made by mail or email, 5 days are added after the period that would otherwise expire under subdivision (a).
Petitioner misconstrues this rule. The additional five-day time period applies when another rule requires a party to act within a specified time after service. Rule 2.514(b) affords no additional time when a rule (in this case rule 9.100(c)(1)) requires a party to act within a specified time after rendition of an order. See e.g., Bell v. U.S.B. Acquisition Co., 734 So.2d 403 (Fla.1999); Turner v. State, 557 So.2d 939 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Bouchard v. State, Dep’t of Bus. Regulation, 448 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
The petition was required to be filed within thirty days of the order rendered on July 15, 2013. Because the petition was filed on August 19, 2013, thirty-five days after rendition, the petition is untimely and this court is therefore without jurisdiction.
Petition dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Medley Plaza, Inc. v. The Rama Fund, LLC, 196 So. 3d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…rule requires a party to act within a specified time after service. Rule 2.514(b) affords no additional time when a rule ... requires a party to act within a specified time after rendition of an order. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Lewis, 122 So. 3d 504, 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Because Medley Plaza filed its hoticé of appeal on June 6, 2016, thirty-five days after rendition of the order denying rehearing, the notice of appeal is untimely. Dismissed.…
-
Matheny v. Indian River Fire Rescue/Johns E. Co., Inc., 174 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…thirty-one days after rendition of the order. Because the filing deadline set [*1130] forth in Rule 9.100(c) is jurisdictional, and Petitioner did not meet the deadline, this Court lacks jurisdiction. See Miccosukee THbe of Indians of Fla. v. Lewis, 122 So. 3d 504, 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); see also § 59.081(2), Fla. Stat. (2014) (“Failure to invoke the jurisdiction of any such court within the time prescribed by such.rules shall divest such court of jurisdiction to review such cause.”). On jurisdictional scr…
-
C. M. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 208 So. 3d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…tice of appeal); Donaldson v. State, 136 So. 3d 1281, 1282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (notice of appeal); Matheny v. Indian River Fire Rescue, 174 So. 3d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (petition for certiorari); Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Lewis, 122 So. 3d 504, 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (petition for certiora-ri). Although no case has addressed the new rule’s application to a court’s briefing order, no reason exists to upset the apple cart by interpreting the new rule differently than its predecessors. An…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Caufield v. Gino Cantele, 837 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 2002)
- Bell v. U.S.B. Acquisition Co., Inc., 734 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 1999)
- Conrad F. and Shirley Bouchard v. State, 448 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Turner v. State, 557 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Litem v. Maritz GIL DE Rubio and Ferdinand Gil De Rubio, 409 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Emil Albert Dealto v. The Honorable Richard B. Keating, 409 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Itzhak BAK v. BAK, 110 So. 3d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Kristofer Louis-Gaston LaCARRERE v. Reilly, 987 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Wibbens v. State, 956 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Orozco v. State, 987 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)