MDXQ
v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, ET AL.
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.
MDXQ failed to establish the clear legal right and corresponding ministerial duty necessary for mandamus relief, and any cause of action under section 163.3215(3) was not ripe absent a development order.
[1] To obtain a writ of mandamus, a petitioner must establish that it has a clear legal right, the respondent has a clear legal and ministerial duty to perform, and the petit…
[2] A cause of action under section 163.3215(3), Florida Statutes, challenging a local government decision on a development order is not ripe for determination absent the iss…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Writs of mandamus are extraordinary remedies that 'may not be used to establish the existence of an enforceable right, but rather only to enforce a right already clearly and certainly established in the law.'”
Court explaining the standard for mandamus relief
MDXQ sought a writ of mandamus to compel Miami-Dade County to make a consistency determination regarding the County's proposal to use MDXQ's property …
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 Comprehensive Development Master Plan cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed February 6, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D18-890 Lower Tribunal No. 17-21598 ________________
MDXQ, LLC, Appellant,
vs.
Miami-Dade County, etc., et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Spencer Eig, Judge.
Cozen O’Connor, and Charles C. Kline, Jason R. Domark and Reid Kline, for appellant.
Abigail Price-Williams, Miami-Dade County Attorney, and Christopher J. Wahl, Dennis A. Kerbel and Debra Herman, Assistant County Attorneys, for appellees.
Before EMAS, C.J., and SALTER and FERNANDEZ, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
MDXQ, LLC, appeals the trial court’s order granting Miami-Dade County’s motion to dismiss and dismissing MDXQ’s complaint. In Count One of its complaint, MDXQ sought a writ of mandamus to compel the County to make a “Consistency Determination” on whether the County’s proposal to use MDXQ’s property for a water treatment plant is consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Development Master Plan.1 MDXQ contended (in the alternative) that, should the trial court determine Miami-Dade County had already made a consistency determination, MDXQ was entitled to a de novo review of that determination pursuant to section 163.3215(3), Florida Statutes (2017). We affirm the trial court’s dismissal order. Upon our de novo review2 of the allegations in the complaint and its attachments, as well as the plain language of the County’s Master Plan and section 163.3215(3), we hold that the trial court properly determined MDXQ failed to establish it had a clear, legal and present right to receive
3 Subsection (3) provides:
Any aggrieved or adversely affected party may maintain a de novo action for declaratory, injunctive, or other relief against any local government to challenge any decision of such local government granting or denying an application for, or to prevent such local government from taking any action on, a development order, as defined in s. 163.3164, which materially alters the use or density or intensity of use on a particular piece of property which is not consistent with the comprehensive plan adopted under this part. The de novo action must be filed no later than 30 days following rendition of a development order or other written decision, or when all local administrative appeals, if any, are exhausted, whichever occurs later.
(Emphasis added.)
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fausto Lopez-Infante v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co., 809 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Walker v. Ellis, 989 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Fla. Caucus OF Black State Legislators, Inc. v. Crosby, 877 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Tallahassee Mem'l Reg'l Med. Ctr. & Halifax Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Gerald A. Lewis as Comptroller of the State of Fla., 399 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Powell v. Allen, 748 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Payne v. City OF Miami, 52 So. 3d 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Nixon v. State, 748 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Pleadro J. Scott v. State, 130 So. 3d 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)