AUBREY LAND, JOHN ULM, DAVID CLARK, DOUG GLISSON, JAMES PADGETT, AND STACY HARRIS, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLEE
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.
Inspector General Investigators for the Florida Department of Corrections appealed the dismissal of their complaint challenging two confidentiality agreements they were required to sign. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal because the appellants failed to address the trial court's standing and justiciability rulings in their initial appellate brief, thereby abandoning those arguments.
Appellants abandoned their standing and justiciability arguments by failing to raise them in their initial brief, and such abandoned arguments cannot be entertained for the first time on appeal.
[1] An issue not raised in an initial brief is deemed abandoned and may not be raised for the first time in a reply brief.
[2] A party abandons any issue that was not raised in the initial petition.
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“An issue not raised in an initial brief is deemed abandoned and may not be raised for the first time in a reply brief.”
Establishes the foundational rule of appellate procedure that appellants violated by failing to address standing in their initial brief.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants, who are Inspector General Investigators for the Florida Department of Corrections, were required to sign two confidentiality agreements or…
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 Justiciable Controversy cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, who are Inspector General Investigators for the Florida Department of Corrections (the Department), challenge the trial court’s final order dismissing their complaint with prejudice for lack of standing. We ■■ affirm because appellants failed to raise their arguments -in their initial brief, as discussed further below.
Facts
Appellants’ .complaint alleged they were improperly required by the Department to sign two separate confidentiality agreements or face discipline that eould include the termination of their employment. Appellants believed the confidentiality agreements were contrary -to both state and federal law. They requested two types of relief from the trial court: (1) a declaratory judgment stating the confidentiality agreements violated Florida and federal law and that appellants would not be subject to discipline or termination for refusing to execute or abide by them; and (2) an injunction enjoining the Department from requiring them to sign the agreements.
Appellant also filed an emergency motion for injunctive relief requesting the trial court to enjoin the Department from requiring the execution and enforcement of the confidentiality agreements.
The Department then filed a motion to dismiss appellants’ complaint for failure to state a cause of action, alleging in part that appellants had failed to allege a justiciable controversy and, thus, lacked standing.
The trial court denied appellants’ emergency motion for injunctive relief and dismissed appellants’ complaint with prejudice, finding that appellants had failed to establish the existence of a justiciable controversy sufficient to establish standing to obtain declaratory -relief under chapter 86, Florida Statutes.-
Appellants appeal the dismissal of their complaint with prejudice. In their initial brief, appellants raise three issues concerning why the confidentiality agreements violate Florida and federal law. *1254The initial brief never addresses the trial court’s rulings regarding the lack of a justiciable controversy or standing.
Analysis
It is well-settled that that “[a]n issue not raised in an initial brief is deemed abandoned and may not be raised for the first time in a reply brief.’ ” Hoskins v. State, 75 So.3d 250, 257 (Fla.2011) (quoting Hall v. State, 823 So.2d 757, 763 (Fla.2002)); see also Parker-Cyrus v. Justice Admin. Comm’n, 160 So.3d 926, 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (noting an argument may not be raised for the first time in a reply brief: “[i]n fact, a party abandons any issue that was not raised in the initial petition.”); J.A.B. Enter. v. Gibbons, 596 So.2d 1247, 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
Thus, this court is unable to entertain appellants’ argument as to their standing or arguments related to the existence of a justiciable controversy which they failed to raise in their initial brief.
For this reason, we AFFIRM.
WETHERELL and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Onika Williams v. The City OF Jacksonville (County of Duval), 191 So. 3d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…illiams did not challenge the dismissal as to the Jacksonville Sheriffs Office, Officer James F„ Byrne, and the City of Jacksonville’s Risk Management Division. Therefore, the dismissal of those parties is affirmed. See Land v. Fla. Dep’t. of Corr., 181 So. 3d 1252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (if not raised in an initial brief, an issue is abandoned).1 The complaint was filed on January 2, 2015. Ms. Williams alleged that on January 5, 2011, she was struck by a City of Jacksonville police vehicle as she crossed an int…
-
Intego Software, LLC v. Concept Dev., Inc., 198 So. 3d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…sed the issue of “technical deficiencies” in its initial brief, so the issue was waived and we should not address it. See Hoskins v. State, 75 So. 3d 250 (Fla.2011) (issues not raised in an initial brief are abandoned); Land v. Fla. Dep’t of Corrs., 181 So. 3d 1252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). ■ More importantly, the problem with In-tego’s Declarations was not a mere technical defect. In all of the relevant cases cited by the majority, the trial courts were presented with actual affidavits but some statement or evide…
-
Michael and Sara Willens v. Willens, 225 So. 3d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…r, on appeal had two grounds ..., and as the State’s initial brief only challenges the first ground -..., we are compelled to affirm since reversal can only be premised on arguments made in the initial brief.”); see also Land v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 181 So. 3d 1252, 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (‘We affirm because appellants failed to raise their arguments in their initial brief .... ”). Even if the trial court was incorrect in finding an agreement, the court’s, independent conclusion on promissory estoppel afford…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hall v. State, 823 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2002)
- Hoskins v. State, 75 So. 3d 250 (Fla. 2011)
- J.A.B. Enters. & John Brown v. Gibbons, 596 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Parker-Cyrus v. Just. Admin. Comm'n, 160 So. 3d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)