GERARDO L. MARQUEZ
v.
MARTHA RIVERA
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.
Appellant Gerardo L. Marquez appeals two orders extending ex parte temporary injunctions for protection against dating violence and stalking issued in January 2020. The trial court extended the injunctions on December 29, 2020 without any showing of good cause by either party. The appellate court reversed, finding the sua sponte extensions violated statutory requirements for continuances.
The trial court erred in sua sponte extending the temporary injunctions where neither party asserted good cause for continuing the hearing. The December 29, 2020 orders extending the injunctions are reversed and remanded.
[1] A trial court lacks authority to sua sponte extend a temporary injunction for protection against dating violence or stalking without a showing of good cause by any party…
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 court may grant a continuance of the ex parte injunction and the full hearing before or during a hearing, for good cause shown by any party.”
Section 784.046(6)(c), Florida Statutes (2020), setting forth the statutory requirement for extension of dating violence injunctions
Temporary injunctions for protection against dating violence (filed by Martha Rivera) and stalking (filed by Gabriel Rivera) were originally entered a…
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 Injunction For Protection Against Dating Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
Consolidated appeal of nonfinal orders from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Stefanie C. Moon, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. DVCE 20-000412 (63) and DVCE 20-000414 (63).
Yvette R. Lavelle, Elaine D. Walter, Manuel L. Casabielle and Connie F. Chen of Boyd Richards Parker Colonnelli, Miami, for appellant.
No appearance for appellees. PER CURIAM.
In this consolidated appeal1, Gerardo L. Marquez (“Appellant”) appeals two December 29, 2020 orders extending: (1) an ex parte temporary injunction for protection against dating violence entered at the behest of appellee Martha Rivera under section 784.046, Florida Statutes (2020); and (2) an ex parte temporary injunction for protection against stalking entered at the behest of appellee Gabriel Rivera under section 784.0485, Florida Statutes (2020). The temporary injunctions were originally entered against Appellant in January 2020 and subsequently extended several times.
On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in extending the temporary injunctions where there was no showing of good cause to merit a continuation. See § 784.046(6)(c), Fla. Stat. (2020) (“The court may grant a continuance of the ex parte injunction and the full hearing before or during a hearing, for good cause shown by any party.”); § 784.0485(5)(c), 1 Appellant briefed these two cases individually but we, sua sponte, consolidate them for purposes of this opinion.
Fla. Stat. (2020) (“The court may grant a continuance of the hearing before or during a hearing for good cause shown by any party, which shall include a continuance to obtain service of process. An injunction shall be extended if necessary to remain in full force and effect during any period of continuance.”). Specifically, he argues that the orders were entered sua sponte, without any allegation or showing of good cause.
We agree and reverse the December 29, 2020 orders extending the injunctions. See Dietz v. Dietz, 127 So. 3d 1279, 1280–81 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (trial court erred in sua sponte extending the temporary injunction where neither party asserted good cause for continuing the hearing).
Reversed and remanded. GROSS, DAMOORGIAN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.