Court Filings

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 Court of Appeal granted Karla Amezcua’s petition for a writ of mandate and ordered the trial court to remove a condition requiring her to pay Massage Envy’s attorney fees as a term of leave to amend her complaint. The trial court had sustained Massage Envy’s demurrer but conditioned granting Amezcua leave to amend on payment of $25,000 in fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 473. The appellate court held section 473 does not authorize shifting attorney fees and that fee-shifting must be grounded in statute or agreement; the trial court therefore erred by imposing a fee condition under section 473.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the superior court’s denial of Blue Origin’s motion to compel arbitration of former employee Craig Stoker’s employment claims. The court found the arbitration agreement procedurally unconscionable because it was an adhesion contract presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, and substantively unconscionable because it was overbroad, lacked mutuality, waived jury trial, and barred representative claims including PAGA-style claims. Because multiple defects tainted the agreement and severance would not cure the one-sided scheme, the court held the arbitration clause unenforceable and affirmed denial of the petition to compel arbitration.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of Citizens Against Marketplace Apartment/Condo Development’s petitions challenging the City of San Ramon’s approval of an infill housing project at Marketplace Center and the city’s finding that the project was categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA. Citizens argued the project conflicted with the general plan and zoning because a joint “master plan” was allegedly required and the development was not a proper horizontal mixed-use. The court found substantial evidence supported the city’s consistency findings and that CEQA’s in-fill exemption applied, and it upheld the trial court’s award of record-preparation costs to the city.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Elisha Holloway’s appeal from a county court judgment awarding possession and damages to The Julian at South Pointe because Holloway failed to file the required docketing statement and did not respond to the Court’s notices. The Clerk had set deadlines and warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal. Because no docketing statement or extension request was received, the court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and for failure to follow a clerk’s directive, and it dismissed an emergency motion as moot.

The Court of Appeals dismissed an eviction appeal as moot after the appellants informed the court they no longer occupy the disputed property and do not oppose dismissal. The court noted that eviction proceedings in justice and county courts focus solely on the right to actual possession under Texas law and the civil rules. Because the appellants vacated the premises, the court vacated the county court judgment, dismissed the appeal and all pending motions, and provided no further relief on possession or related claims.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth District of Texas dismissed an appeal brought by Mitternight Boiler Works, Inc. after Mitternight filed a motion to dismiss under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The appellate court granted the motion prior to issuing any decision on the merits and dismissed the appeal, denying as moot all other pending motions. The dismissal was entered by per curiam opinion and the court noted the procedural rule authorizing dismissal on the appellant's motion.

The court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Mireyda and Joel Gonzalez’s suit against the City of Vidor. The Gonzalezes claimed the City was vicariously liable for a police officer’s negligent driving that led to a crash, arguing the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) waived immunity because the officer acted recklessly and failed to use his siren. The Court of Appeals held the emergency exception to the TTCA applied: the officer was responding to an emergency, his use of lights but not a siren was justified under statutory exceptions, and the record did not show conscious indifference or reckless disregard that would waive immunity. The City’s plea to the jurisdiction was properly granted.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Ronald Sutherland’s suit for want of prosecution. Sutherland had sued Thomas Dean Stewart and Phillip Chapman for falsely reporting a 1966 Ford Mustang stolen and sought sanctions and a default judgment against Stewart for discovery failures. The trial court dismissed the case after Sutherland failed to appear for trial. The appeals court held Sutherland did not challenge the dismissal itself, and interlocutory denials of sanctions or default judgments cannot be reviewed separately once a final dismissal stands, so the dismissal is dispositive.

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District granted the parties' joint motion to reinstate and dismiss an appeal brought by Rene Martinez from an order enforcing a Rule 11 settlement. After the case was abated for mediation, the parties executed a mediated settlement agreement and asked the court to dismiss the appeal. The court reinstated the appeal and dismissed it by joint motion, ordering costs taxed against the party that incurred them and noting that no motion for rehearing will be entertained.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Jason Kelsey’s petition for a bill of review seeking to set aside an agreed final divorce decree that awarded most marital assets to Maria Rocha. Kelsey, who signed the decree while incarcerated and proceeded pro se, claimed fraud, duress, lack of a valid marriage, and mischaracterization of his separate property. The trial court found he failed to prove a meritorious defense or that he was prevented by fraud, official mistake, or wrongful act from presenting a defense, and that his own negligence contributed to the outcome. The appellate court held those findings were supported and reviewed for abuse of discretion, so the denial was affirmed.

The Court of Appeals (Thirteenth District) denied Randall Bolivar’s petition for a writ of mandamus challenging several trial-court actions in cause no. 2021-DCL-05478. Bolivar argued the trial court abused its discretion by not deeming requests for admission admitted, by failing to provide notice and hearings on six motions, and by not signing a nonsuit order. The court held that mandamus is extraordinary relief and that Bolivar failed to meet his burden to show both a clear abuse of discretion and lack of an adequate appellate remedy, and the record provided was insufficient to support mandamus relief.

The court granted a petition for writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its January 7, 2026 order that allowed a defendant to add four third-party defendants late in a long-running ownership and fraud dispute. The appellate court held the trial judge abused his discretion because adding new parties at that stage—after nearly five years of litigation and many prior trial settings—would unreasonably delay the case; the trial court’s ruling to vacate the March 23, 2026 setting was the primary harm. The court found the proposed third parties were not indispensable and that the delay was not reasonable under the case history.

The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a default judgment entered against Access Dental Management, LLC (ADM) in favor of June’s Boutique, LLC. June attempted service on ADM by first trying the named agent at a Dallas address, then seeking substitute service via the Texas Secretary of State. The court held the record did not demonstrate ADM’s registered agent or registered address matched the Dallas address used for service, and the Secretary of State’s certificate did not establish the forwarding address required by statute. Because strict service requirements were not met, the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction and the default judgment is void.

The court reversed a jury verdict awarding noneconomic and exemplary damages to Candace Williams after finding that her malpractice claim was based solely on the emotional harms of an unplanned pregnancy that arose from a doctor’s failure to perform a tubal ligation. Relying on the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Noe v. Velasco (2024), the court held that pregnancy-related noneconomic harms (including mental anguish from deciding to terminate) are not legally compensable because pregnancy is inseparable from bringing about a child’s life. Because Williams offered no other compensable damages, the judgment was reversed and judgment rendered that she take nothing.

The Second District Court of Appeals at Fort Worth dismissed Reginald Munoz’s appeal for failure to pay the required $205 filing fee after being warned twice under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court cited the appellant’s noncompliance with Rule 42.3(c) and related rules, and referenced the Texas Supreme Court’s 2015 fee order. The court ordered Munoz to pay all costs of the appeal and issued a per curiam memorandum opinion dismissing the case on April 23, 2026.

The Georgia Court of Appeals denied Jeremy Knowles's emergency motion for a stay of enforcement because he had not filed a notice of appeal in the trial court. Although Knowles's application for discretionary review was granted on March 10, 2026, he was given ten days to file a notice of appeal and the court confirmed no notice had been filed in DeKalb County Superior Court. Because there was no notice to operate as a supersedeas of the trial court’s final order, the Court declined to use its emergency stay power under its rules and denied the motion.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed Saadi Orabi's appeal for failure to comply with docketing and briefing rules. The appellant did not respond to the notice of docketing or file the required enumeration of errors and brief within the time prescribed by Court of Appeals Rule 23(a) and Rule 13. The court had previously ordered those filings by February 20, 2026, but they were never filed, so the appeal was deemed abandoned and dismissed pursuant to Court of Appeals Rules 7 and 23(a).

The Court of Appeals dismissed Ricky R. Franklin’s direct appeal of a trial-court award of attorney fees to Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC and Wilmington Savings Fund Society because the appeal should have been pursued by filing an application for discretionary review under Georgia law. The trial court had awarded $14,354.50 in fees under OCGA § 9-15-14(b), and denied Franklin’s motions for a new trial and to set aside the fee award. The appellate court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because Franklin did not follow the mandatory discretionary appeals procedure required for appeals of attorney-fee awards.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an Application for Discretionary Appeal in case A26D0443, Nancy Pierce Jo Jenkins v. Michelle Jenkins, arising from Liberty County case number 24CV002090. The court issued a short order dated April 23, 2026, denying the application for discretionary appeal. No opinion or reasoning beyond the denial was provided in the extract; the court simply ordered that the application be denied and the Clerk certified the minutes.

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's order discontinuing reunification services and approving a permanency plan of adoption for two minor children after finding the parents subjected the younger child, A. A., to chronic physical abuse. Medical evidence showed A. A. suffered twelve fractures in various healing stages; a child-abuse pediatrician concluded the injuries resulted from repeated adult-inflicted pulling and twisting. The parents invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege at the nonreunification hearing, and the court drew adverse inferences from that refusal. The appellate court held that the evidence met the clear-and-convincing standard for nonreunification and aggravated circumstances.