DARRYL DESHAZIOR, APPELLANT,
v.
SCHOOL BOARD OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA ETC., 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.
Darryl Deshazior, a School Board employee, sued for breach of a collective bargaining agreement but failed to timely initiate and exhaust the grievance process required by the contract. The trial court granted summary judgment for the School Board, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to litigation.
The court affirmed summary judgment, holding that Deshazior's claim was barred by his failure to timely initiate the grievance process and his failure to exhaust the required administrative remedy. A party bound by a collective bargaining agreement must exhaust administrative remedies prior to litigating in court.
[1] An affidavit need not state that it is based upon personal knowledge where the affiant is shown to be in a position where he would necessarily possess such knowledge.
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence in opposition to a summary judgment motion that is not timely served.
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“It is a well settled principle] that a party, when bound by a collective bargaining agreement, must exhaust an administrative remedy prior to litigating in court”
Establishes the fundamental requirement that employees bound by collective bargaining agreements must complete the grievance process before filing suit
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeshazior, an employee of the School Board of Miami-Dade County, filed a breach of contract complaint in August 2014. The School Board moved for summa…
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 Competent Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
In August 2014, Darryl Deshazior, an employee of the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida (“the School Board”), filed a complaint against the School Board, alleging a breach of the collective bargaining agreement. In February 2016, the School Board moved for summary judgment, supported by affidavits and other evidence, asserting that Deshaz-ior’s claim was barred by his failure to timely initiate and exhaust the grievance process mandated by the terms of the *152collective bargaining agreement; and that Deshazior failed to establish a prima facie case of breach of contract. The trial court entered final summary judgment in favor of the School Board, and Deshazior appealed.
The trial court properly determined that the affidavits submitted by the School Board were competent evidence and that the affidavits and other evidence were legally sufficient to conclusively establish the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. See Buzzi v. Quality Serv. Station, Inc., 921 So.2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Alvarez v. Florida Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc., 661 So.2d 1230, 1232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding that an affidavit need not state that it is based upon personal knowledge where the affiant is shown to be in a position where he would necessarily possess such knowledge).
The trial court also determined that Deshazior failed to timely serve his notice of evidence in opposition to the School Board’s summary judgment motion, and we find no abuse of discretion in excluding such evidence. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) (providing that evidence in opposition to summary judgment must be served at least five days prior to the day of the hearing or delivered no later than 5:00 p.m. two business days prior to the day of the hearing); Independent Fire Ins. Co. v. Rogers, 580 So.2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (holding that trial court’s decision not to consider untimely affidavit in opposition to motion for summary judgment was not an abuse of discretion); Binford v. City of Winter Springs, 969 So.2d 1098, 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (observing: “It is well established that an affidavit in opposition to summary judgment which is filed on the day of the summary judgment hearing is untimely and the trial court has discretion to disregard it.”)
Given the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, all that remained for determination was an issue of law: the interpretation and application of the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. Upon our de novo review, Volusia Cty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla. 2000), we affirm the trial court’s final summary judgment, and hold that the trial court properly determined that Deshazior’s claim was barred by his failure to timely initiate the grievance process as mandated by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, and his failure to exhaust that administrative remedy. See Bello v. Miami Dade Cty., Fla., 167 So.3d 464, 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (holding: “It is a well settled principle] that a party, when bound by a collective bargaining agreement, must exhaust an administrative remedy prior to litigating in court”) (quoting Public Health Trust v. Hernandez, 751 So.2d 124, 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)). We find no merit in the other issues raised by Deshazior.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Umana v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 282 So. 3d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…of Citizens. Wolentarski v. Anchor Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 252 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Les Chateaux at Int'l Gardens Condo. Ass’n v. Cuevas & Assocs., P.A., 219 So. 3d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Deshazior v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade Cty., Fla., 217 So. 3d 151 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the insureds’ motion for rehearing premised upon new evidence. “A trial court has the 1 We note that the insureds contend in their brief that “the trial c…
-
Wolentarski v. Anchor Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 252 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…hat evidence in opposition to summary judgment must be served at least five days prior to the day of the hearing or delivered no later than 5:00 p.m. two business days prior to the date of the hearing); Deshazior v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade Cty, Fla., 217 So. 3d 151, 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (holding that the trial court’s decision not to consider an untimely affidavit in opposition to a motion for summary judgment was not an abuse of discretion). Affirmed.…
-
Oscal Rousseau v. Miami-Dade Cnty. (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…, when bound by a collective bargaining agreement, must exhaust any administrative remedy prior to litigating in court.”) (quoting Public Health Tr. v. Hernandez, 751 So. 2d 124, 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)); Deshazior v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade Cnty., 217 So. 3d 151, 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (holding “the trial court properly determined that [the County ---PAGE 3--- employee’s] claim was barred by his failure to timely initiate the grievance process as mandated by the terms of the collective bargaining agreem…
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
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen AT Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000)
- Alvarez v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc., 661 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Buzzi v. Quality Serv. Station, Inc., 921 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Pub. Health Tr. v. Heriberto Hernandez, 751 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Indep. Fire Ins. Co. v. Rogers, 580 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Bello v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 167 So. 3d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- Binford v. City OF Winter Springs, 969 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)