VICTOR LUCKY
v.
BEATRICE CAZEAU, ETC., ET AL.

Fla. 3d DCA | 2026-09-09
No. 2026-0101
Scales, C.J., Logue, J., Lobree, J., Lopez, J.
2026 FL 11788 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2026)

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.


Holding

A mandamus petition seeking to compel a traffic magistrate to rule on pending motions is moot when the magistrate schedules a pretrial hearing that will address those matters.


Headnotes

[1] A mandamus petition becomes moot when the defendant official takes action that provides the petitioner with the relief sought or renders such relief unnecessary.

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

Facts & Procedural History

Pro se appellant Victor Lucky filed a mandamus petition in circuit court seeking to compel a traffic magistrate to rule on three motions filed in his …

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.


Opinion of the Court

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed September 9, 2026.

No. 3D26-0101 Lower Tribunal No. 25-23082-CA-01

Victor Lucky, Appellant,

VS.

Beatrice Cazeau, etc., et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Peter R. Lopez, Judge.

Victor Lucky, in proper person.

Holland & Knight LLP, and Christopher N. Bellows & Jose A. Casal; The Monestime Firm, P.A., and Regine Monestime (Coral Springs), for appellees.

Before SCALES, C.J., and LOGUE and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Pro se appellant Victor Lucky appeals the lower court's January 5, 2026 order that dismissed, as moot, Lucky's petition for writ of mandamus. Lucky had sought below an order compelling the traffic magistrate to rule on three motions Lucky had filed in his traffic court proceedings (case number AM9FLME). We affirm because the record supports the trial court's determination that the traffic magistrate's setting of a pretrial hearing in Lucky's traffic case for January 21, 2026, mooted his mandamus petition. No motion for rehearing will be entertained by this Court.

Affirmed.1

2

Footnotes
1 After briefing was complete in this case, Lucky filed an August 4, 2026 motion seeking leave to file an amended reply brief. We grant this motion; we have considered Lucky's amended reply brief in the disposition of this appeal. We deny both Lucky's August 5, 2026 motion seeking leave to file an amended initial brief and his August 6, 2026 motion for leave to file another amended initial brief.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw