CATHERINE EVARISTE
v.
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA D/B/A SEMINOLE CASINO COCONUT CREEK
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.
Catherine Evariste appeals the dismissal with prejudice of her tort claim against the Seminole Tribe of Florida for an alleged casino injury. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with prerequisite requirements of the 2010 Gaming Compact. The appellate court reversed and remanded after the controlling precedent changed between the trial court's oral dismissal and this court's issuance of Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Pupo.
The court reversed the dismissal with prejudice and remanded for further proceedings, finding that a premature filing does not forever bar the lawsuit under the Compact's terms, as established in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Pupo.
[1] A plaintiff's failure to comply with prerequisite filing requirements under the 2010 Gaming Compact does not permanently bar a subsequent properly filed tort claim agains…
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 intelligenceEvariste filed a tort lawsuit against the Seminole Tribe of Florida for injuries allegedly sustained at one of the Tribe's casinos. The trial court or…
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.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Keathan B. Frink, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE23003354.
Chad A. Barr and Dalton L. Gray of Chad Barr Law, Altamonte Springs, for appellant.
Mark D. Schellhase, Jordan S. Kosches, and Emily L. Pineless of GrayRobinson, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee. PER CURIAM.
Appellant Catherine Evariste appeals the trial court’s dismissal of her complaint with prejudice, which she filed against appellee Seminole Tribe of Florida (“the Tribe”) after allegedly sustaining an injury at one of the Tribe’s casinos. The trial court’s dismissal order specified that Evariste failed to comply with the prerequisite requirements of the 2010 Gaming Compact (“the Compact”) governing tort claims filed against the Tribe. This dismissal decision was based on our rulings in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Webster, 372 So. 3d 287 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), and Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Manzini, 361 So. 3d 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023).
After the trial court orally dismissed the case, but before it rendered its written dismissal order, we issued Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Pupo, 384 So. 3d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), wherein we determined that a plaintiff’s premature filing of a tort lawsuit under the Compact’s terms did not “forever bar” the lawsuit.1 Id. at 191. Evariste argues, and the Tribe 1 The trial court heard arguments and orally granted the Tribe’s motion to dismiss on December 18, 2023. We issued Pupo on December 20, 2023, and the written dismissal order in the instant case was signed on December 22, 2023. The trial concedes, that this case warrants reversal under the circumstances here.2 We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the final order of dismissal with prejudice, and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. WARNER, LEVINE and FORST, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
court entered its order denying Evariste’s rehearing motion while this Court was considering motions for rehearing, rehearing en banc, and certification in Pupo.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Evariste v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 372 So. 3d 287 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)…hat Evariste failed to comply with the prerequisite requirements of the 2010 Gaming Compact (“the Compact”) governing tort claims filed against the Tribe. This dismissal decision was based on our rulings in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Webster, 372 So. 3d 287 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), and Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Manzini, 361 So. 3d 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). After the trial court orally dismissed the case, but before it rendered its written dismissal order, we issued Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Pupo,…1 / 2
-
Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino -Hollywood v. Pupo (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…of immunity and addressing this Compact, but we decide this case on a point those decisions expressly declined to reach because of issues involving the sufficiency of the patron’s notice to trigger the waiver. See Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Webster, 372 So. 3d 287, 292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023); Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Manzini, 361 So. 3d 883, 887–88 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). Discussion Even though the patron’s second lawsuit was filed over a year after the written notice of claim, the Tribe contends that suit was “…1 / 2
-
Seminole Tribe of Fla., Inc. v. Webster (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…waiver were satisfied. “As a federally recognized Indian tribe, the Seminole Tribe is entitled to sovereign immunity over all claims unless such immunity is abrogated by Congress or waived by the Seminole Tribe.” Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Manzini, 361 So. 3d 883, 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023); see also Lewis v. Edwards, 815 So. 2d 656, 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Waivers must be “clear, explicit, and unmistakable.” Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. Napoleoni, 890 So. 2d 1152, 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Further, a wai…
Authorities Cited
- Evariste v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 372 So. 3d 287 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)