VLADISLAV LOBIDIN
v.
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
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.
A complaint filed on the sixty-second day after the alleged harm was timely when the sixtieth day fell on a weekend and the following day was a legal holiday, because applicable rules extend filing deadlines until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
[1] When computing a filing deadline under a statute that does not specify a method of computation, if the deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the deadlin…
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“extended "until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday." Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.514(a)”
Explaining how the sixty-day filing period was extended when the deadline fell on a weekend
Lobidin filed a Whistle-Blower's Act complaint against Florida State University on May 30, 2017, which was the sixty-second day after identifying Marc…
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 Whistle-Blower'S Act Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
September 5, 2018 PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of the dismissal of his Whistle-Blower’s Act complaint against Florida State University by the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Appellant contends that the Commission erred by summarily dismissing his complaint on the basis of untimeliness. We agree because, by rule, the sixty-day time period to file a complaint, see § 112.31895(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016), extended “until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.” Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.514(a) (computing time periods for statutes that do not otherwise specify a method of computing time).
In this instance, Appellant’s complaint should not have been summarily dismissed despite being filed on the sixty-second day—
2
May 30, 2017—after the date of harm it identified—March 29, 2017—because the sixtieth day fell on a weekend, and the complaint was filed on the first day following the weekend and holiday Monday. See Johnson v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 190 So. 3d 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (reversing as improper a notice of dismissal entered on timeliness grounds).
We therefore REVERSE and REMAND this matter for additional proceedings. OSTERHAUS, WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.