WANDA MOTA
v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, ETC.
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.
Wanda Mota appeals the dismissal of her negligence complaint against Miami-Dade County based on her failure to timely obtain new counsel or notify the court of self-representation after her attorney withdrew. The appellate court reversed, finding that Mota was not properly noticed of the hearing on the motion to withdraw counsel, and therefore the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint for noncompliance.
The court reversed and remanded because the dismissal was error where there is no evidence in the record that the plaintiff received proper notice of the hearing on the motion to withdraw and the plaintiff's averment that she did not timely receive notice was unrefuted. An attorney must timely serve both the motion to withdraw and the notice of hearing on the client at the client's known address, as required by Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.505(f)(1).
[1] Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.505(f)(1) imposes a mandatory requirement that an attorney filing a motion to withdraw timely serve both the motion and notice o…
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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Court's discussion of the procedural requirements for attorney withdrawal motions
Wanda Mota's attorney filed a motion to withdraw from her negligence case against Miami-Dade County. There is no evidence in the record that Mota rece…
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 Motion To Withdraw cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed December 22, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D21-873 Lower Tribunal No. 20-13100 ________________
Wanda Mota,
Appellant,
vs.
Miami-Dade County, etc., Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David C. Miller, Judge. Wanda Mota, in proper person. Geraldine Bonzon-Keenan, Miami-Dade County Attorney, and Joni A. Mosely, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee. Before EMAS, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. EMAS, J.
Wanda Mota appeals the dismissal of her complaint for negligence against Miami-Dade County, which was based upon her failure to either timely obtain counsel, or to notify the court of her intent to represent herself, following the withdrawal of her prior counsel. We reverse and remand because there is nothing in the record evidencing that Mota was sent proper notice of the hearing on her attorney’s motion to withdraw. Nor is there anything in the record to refute Mota’s averment, made in the court below, that she did not timely receive notice of that hearing.1 Therefore, it was error for the trial court to dismiss Mota’s complaint based upon Mota’s failure to timely comply with the order granting the motion to withdraw. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.505(f)(1); Saenz v. Pena, 754 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (holding that where motion to withdraw is filed without notice to client, in violation of the mandatory notice requirements of rule 2.060(j),2 the court should have granted the motion to set aside later-entered judgment against the client); Agape Charter School, Inc. v. Summit Charter School, Inc., 254 So. 3d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (noting: “Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.505(f)(1) contains a mandatory requirement that an 1 We note the commendable concession by Miami-Dade County that there is nothing in the record to refute Mota’s contention that she did not timely receive notice of the hearing on her counsel’s motion to withdraw. 2 Renumbered as Rule 2.505.
attorney filing a motion to withdraw timely serve both the motion and the notice of hearing on his or her client at the client’s known address” and that this “‘notice requirement implicates due process concerns of notice and opportunity to be heard; obviously, then, the notice and motion must be timely and must afford the client an opportunity to respond’”) (quoting Garden
v. Garden, 834 So. 2d 190, 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Garden v. Garden, 834 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Saenz v. Pena, 754 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Agape Charter Sch., Inc. v. Summit Charter Sch., Inc., 254 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)