Court Filings

The Third District Court of Appeal reversed a trial-court order that denied Hartford’s motion to dismiss MSP Recovery’s second amended complaint. MSP had sued for a pure bill of discovery and declaratory relief under Florida’s motor-vehicle no-fault statute, alleging the trial court had specific personal jurisdiction over Hartford. The trial court found Hartford had abandoned its jurisdictional defense, but the appellate court held Hartford did not abandon that defense and, applying a recent controlling precedent (USAA Casualty Ins. Co. v. MSP Recovery Claims), concluded the long-arm jurisdictional allegations were insufficient. The case is dismissed and remanded with directions to dismiss the action.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a three-year injunction for protection against stalking that the trial court had entered for the Wife against the Girlfriend. The appellate court held the evidence did not show the two separate, legally distinct instances of harassment required by Florida law: the October 23 barrage of messages constituted a single episode, and the other alleged acts (two social-media posts and one child-support text) were either isolated or served legitimate purposes. The court also found the communications did not objectively cause the high level of emotional distress the statute requires.

The Fourth District reversed a trial court order denying dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. Ruth sued nonresident trustee Dunham Trust Company (DTC) in Florida for breach of fiduciary duties related to a trust created by a Florida resident. The court held DTC’s acceptance of a successor co-trusteeship and routine communications to a beneficiary who later moved to Florida were insufficient to show that DTC purposefully availed itself of conducting business in Florida. Because DTC’s administration occurred in Nevada and contacts with Florida were tied to unilateral acts of the settlor/beneficiary, due process was not satisfied.

The appellate court reversed a county court order denying the landlord’s motion to dismiss or transfer a security-deposit suit for improper venue. The complaint showed the leased property, tenancy, and a prior eviction action were all in Hillsborough County and did not allege any office or agent of the landlord in Palm Beach County. Because the plaintiff did not plead a sufficient basis for selecting Palm Beach County, the Fourth District held venue is proper in Hillsborough County and remanded with directions to grant the motion and transfer the case there.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a civil case between appellant Kazi Ahmed and appellee Krzysztof Duszka. The appeal arose from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, and both parties appeared pro se. The per curiam opinion is brief and simply states the appeal is affirmed without published reasoning in the opinion. The ruling is subject to possible change if a timely motion for rehearing is filed.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a non-final circuit court order in a civil case where appellant Fernando Costantini Gomes sought to pursue punitive damages under Florida’s vulnerable-adult statutes. The panel held that the statutory framework permits a vulnerable adult to recover actual and punitive damages for abuse, neglect, or exploitation, but a plaintiff must make a reasonable showing in the record (or by proffer) that the defendant’s conduct amounted to intentional misconduct or gross negligence to justify punitive damages. Applying those standards, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a dispute between Emilie Gonzalez and others (appellants) and Maria Del Pilar Alvarez (appellee). The appellate court concluded the record was insufficient to overturn the lower court and deferred to the trial judge's exercise of discretion. Citing precedent, the court explained that without a trial record the appellate court cannot resolve factual disputes or find an abuse of discretion, so the lower court's ruling stands.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a non-final circuit court order in a civil case between appellant Carlos A. Zarraluqui and appellees Fetes & Events, Inc., et al. The appeal arose from a 2023 Miami-Dade County proceeding and was argued by counsel for both sides. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision, simply stating 'Affirmed,' without published opinion or extended reasoning in this document. The judgment affirms the lower court's non-final ruling, and the mandate will follow after disposition of any timely motion for rehearing.

The appellate court reviewed Marie Fleurima's appeal from a Broward County circuit court final judgment. Because Fleurima did not provide a trial transcript and the offered statement of the evidence lacked the trial court's required approval under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(5), the Fourth District limited its review to errors apparent on the face of the final judgment and found none. The court therefore affirmed the trial court's judgment. The opinion cites Edman v. Edman as controlling precedent and notes the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a dispute between the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (appellant) and A & B Verma Family, LLC (appellee). The appeal arose from a Volusia County circuit court ruling; the appellate panel issued a brief per curiam opinion affirming the lower court's judgment without published opinion. All three judges concurred. The mandate notes that the decision is not final until any timely post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules are resolved.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a nonfinal trial-court ruling in a case where Alan G. Williams, individually and as personal representative of an estate, appealed against Pace Island Owners Association, Inc. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion on April 28, 2026, simply stating AFFIRMED without published opinion or extended reasoning. The panel of judges (Jay, C.J., Edwards, and Harris, JJ.) concurred, and the judgment is nonfinal pending any timely authorized post-decision motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower-court decision in a foreclosure-related appeal brought by Suzanne De Lisi against The Bank of New York Mellon (as trustee). The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion stating simply "AFFIRMED," with all three judges concurring. No reasoning, factual background, or legal analysis appears in the published entry; the decision confirms the county court's ruling against the appellant and preserves the lower court's result.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a consolidated appeal (6D2023-3209 and 6D2023-3444) brought by John Daniel Smith against attorneys Kenneth E. Kemp II, Elizabeth Claire Bentley, and the law firm Patrone, Kemp & Bentley, P.A. The opinion is per curiam, dated April 28, 2026, and contains no published reasoning beyond the single-word disposition "AFFIRMED." The panel (Nardella, White, and Smith JJ.) concurred, and counsel for the parties are listed.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed two consolidated appeals from a circuit court order in Osceola County. The appellants, Shawn Michael Simmerer and Charlee McPherson, appearing pro se, sought reversal of the lower court's decision. The appellate court, in a brief per curiam opinion, affirmed the trial court's ruling without published opinion or extended discussion. The panel (Stargel, White, and Brownlee, JJ.) concurred and the opinion notes the time for filing a motion for rehearing has not yet expired.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's judgment in a civil case brought by Robert Lee King, Jr. against Mark S. Brown, M.D., Premier Men's Medical Center of Orlando, LLC, and OPS International, Inc. d/b/a Olympia Pharmaceuticals. The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion, noting only the affirmance without elaboration. The decision means the trial court's ruling stands and the appellant's grounds for reversal were rejected by the appellate panel. No further reasoning or factual findings are provided in the published entry.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal from the County Court for Orange County in a case brought by Kayla Williams against Darius S. Dantzler. The appellate court, in a per curiam decision dated April 28, 2026, affirmed the lower court's judgment. No published opinion or reasoning is provided in the decision sheet; the court's brief entry simply states the judgment is affirmed and notes the time to file a motion for rehearing has not yet expired.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Emily L. Tanner from a Lee County circuit court decision. The appellate court issued a short per curiam decision on April 28, 2026, simply stating the judgment is AFFIRMED. The opinion contains no published reasoning beyond the affirmance and notes concurrence by the three judges. Counsel appearances are listed for appellant and some appellees, while two corporate appellees made no appearance.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal brought by Yonbloksis Young against Ontarya Allen-Johnson, personal representative of an estate. The court issued a short per curiam decision affirming the lower court's ruling. No opinion explaining the reasons was published in the decision; the judgment of the circuit court for Escambia County is left intact. The decision is final subject to any timely, authorized rehearing motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Foziah Alawi from a decision of the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims concerning a workplace injury claim dated June 7, 2023. The appellate court, in a brief per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower tribunal’s ruling. No extended opinion or new legal analysis is provided in the published entry; the court simply affirmed the underlying decision and noted concurrence by the three-judge panel.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's partial summary judgment holding that Willis A. Smith Construction, Inc. (WASC) is not entitled to workers' compensation immunity in a wrongful-death/negligence suit brought by the estate of Phillip Keathley. The underlying accident occurred when Keathley fell while preparing a subcontractor bid for West Shore on a USF restoration project. The court concluded WASC had a contract with USF but did not sublet any portion of that contractual obligation to West Shore because West Shore never submitted a bid or entered an enforceable subcontract with WASC.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a premises-liability or related negligence appeal brought by Joan Randazzo against Walgreens, 8951 Hudson LLC, and Dynaserv Florida, LLC. The appellate panel issued a brief per curiam decision concluding the lower court's ruling was correct and required no change. The court did not publish a full opinion here; the judgment below therefore stands as reviewed and affirmed without published reasoning in this entry.

The appellate court reviewed Jakina Lynum's appeal from a Hillsborough County circuit court judgment involving the Department of Revenue, Child Support Program, and Keevin-Austin Smith. The Second District issued a brief per curiam opinion and affirmed the lower court's decision without published opinion or noted briefing by appellees. The panel unanimously affirmed the judgment, with Judges Khouzam, Atkinson, and Labrit concurring. No reasoning, factual background, or citations were provided in the opinion beyond the affirmance and procedural origin.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a dispute involving David Laurine and several family members and the estate/trust of Robert Laurine. The appellate court reviewed the record and the parties' arguments and concluded there was no reversible error warranting reversal or modification of the lower court's judgment. The opinion is per curiam, short, and does not elaborate reasoning beyond affirming the trial court's ruling, with all three judges concurring.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a dispute involving David Laurine and several family-related appellees, including Victoria A. Shupe in various capacities. The appeal from the Pinellas County circuit court was heard on the record and the panel issued a per curiam opinion, affirming the lower court's ruling without published opinion. The court provided no extended reasoning in this short entry and the judgment of the circuit court therefore stands as affirmed.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, issued a brief per curiam decision affirming a lower-court ruling. The appeal was brought by Joshua Jennings against Richard Clark from the Hillsborough County Circuit Court. The appellate panel, with all three judges concurring, affirmed the trial court's decision without published opinion and noted the opinion may be revised before official publication. No further reasoning or factual background is provided in the document.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal dismissed Johnny Antonio Thomas’s appeal from a county-court order that struck his six counterclaims and setoff defenses in a small-claims action by Chaney’s Used Cars to recover a loan deficiency after repossession and sale. The panel concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the dismissed counterclaims arose from the same transaction as the plaintiff’s claim and therefore were compulsory; orders dismissing compulsory counterclaims are not immediately appealable while the original claim remains pending. The court also rejected alternative bases for interlocutory review and ordered the appeal dismissed.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Bridge Golde from a Glades County County Court decision. The appellate court, in a brief per curiam order, affirmed the lower court's decision and cited Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a). All three judges concurred. The appellant proceeded pro se and the appellee did not appear. The opinion is short-form and finality is subject to the time for filing a motion for rehearing.

The appellate court reviewed an appeal by Kimberly C. Shook from a Pasco County Court decision and, after consideration, issued a per curiam opinion affirming the lower court's judgment. The appeal was submitted with the appellant appearing pro se and no counsel appearing for the appellee. The opinion is brief, notes concurrence by the three-judge panel, and affirms the county court ruling without published reasoning in this short entry.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a wrongful-death/negligent security appeal. The panel held there was no genuine dispute of material fact that would allow a jury to find the defendants owed or breached a legally cognizable duty to prevent the criminal act that caused the decedent’s death. The court relied on Florida summary-judgment standards and precedent distinguishing foreseeability as part of duty and proximate cause, concluding the record did not impose liability on the landowner under current law.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower-court judgment in favor of Otavio Metzker against Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company. The appeal arose from Broward County circuit court proceedings (case no. 062020CA020823AXXXCE). The appellate panel, in a per curiam opinion with concurrence by all judges, issued a simple affirmance without extended opinion. The decision is subject to possible change if a timely motion for rehearing is filed and resolved.