EDDY LEAL, P.A.,
v.
ORLANDO BENITEZ, JR.
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 trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for continuance when the moving party fails to demonstrate prior due diligence, substantially favorable testimony, witness availability, and material prejudice from denial.
[1] A party seeking a continuance due to witness unavailability must demonstrate: (1) prior due diligence to obtain the witness's presence; (2) that substantially favorable t…
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“The granting or denying of a motion for continuance is within the discretion of the trial judge and a gross or flagrant abuse of this discretion must be demonstrated by the complaining party before this court will substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge.”
Standard for reviewing denial of continuance motions
Eddy Leal, P.A. sought a continuance of an evidentiary hearing regarding a charging lien against Orlando Benitez, Jr. The trial court denied the conti…
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 Due Diligence Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed June 26, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D18-1541 Lower Tribunal No. 11-34048 ________________
Eddy Leal, P.A., Appellant,
vs.
Orlando Benitez, Jr., Appellee.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Miguel De La O, Judge.
Eddy Leal, P.A., and Eddy Leal, for appellant.
León Cosgrove, LLP, and Scott B. Cosgrove and Jeremy L. Kahn, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.
MILLER J.
2 Upon careful review of the record, we conclude that appellant has failed to demonstrate any abuse of discretion by the lower tribunal in denying its motion for continuance of the evidentiary hearing upon its charging lien. See Stern v. Four Freedoms Nat’l Med. Servs., Co., 417 So. 2d 1085, 1086 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (“The granting or denying of a motion for continuance is within the discretion of the trial judge and a gross or flagrant abuse of this discretion must be demonstrated by the complaining party before this court will substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge.”) (quoting Edwards v. Pratt, 335 So. 2d 597, 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)); see also Fisher v. Perez, 947 So. 2d 648, 650 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (In addition to the requirements imposed under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.460, a party seeking a motion for continuance due to the unavailability of a witness must show: “(1) prior due diligence to obtain the witness’s presence; (2) that substantially favorable testimony would have been forthcoming; (3) that the witness was available and willing to testify; and (4) that the denial of the continuance would cause material prejudice.”) (quoting State v. J.G., 740 So. 2d 84, 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)).1 Accordingly, we affirm. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Angeles v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 326 So. 3d 811 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
-
GR Opco, LLC v. Murillo (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
Authorities Cited
- Edwards v. Pratt, 335 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Stern v. Four Freedoms Nat'l Med. Servs., 417 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- State v. J.G., 740 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Glenna Fisher v. Perez, 947 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- Attias v. Faroy Realty Co., 609 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)