Hydro-Dyne Engineering, Inc. v. Williams, Griffith
Docket 2D2025-2043
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Florida
- Court
- District Court of Appeal of Florida
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Docket
- 2D2025-2043
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County
Summary
The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling in a case where Hydro-Dyne Engineering, Inc. appealed from a Pinellas County circuit court decision involving Michael Williams, Scott Griffith, Cornerstone Mechanical, LLC, and Cornerstone H20, LLC. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. The appellate court issued a one-line per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment, with three judges concurring. No further opinion or reasoning was provided in the published docket entry.
Issue Decided
- Whether the circuit court's decision (below) should be reversed on appeal under Rule 9.130 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Court's Reasoning
The published entry contains only a per curiam affirmation without explanation. The court provided no written analysis or factual findings in this entry, so the specific legal reasoning supporting affirmation is not included in the document.
Parties
- Appellant
- Hydro-Dyne Engineering, Inc.
- Appellee
- Michael Williams
- Appellee
- Scott Griffith
- Appellee
- Cornerstone Mechanical, LLC
- Appellee
- Cornerstone H20, LLC
- Judge
- Patricia A. Muscarella
- Attorney
- Donald A. Mihokovich
- Attorney
- Kenneth M. Curtin
- Attorney
- Elliot A. Hallak
- Attorney
- Megan E. Knepka
- Attorney
- Brett P. Owens
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-17
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult appellate counsel
Speak with your appellate attorney to determine whether to seek rehearing in the district court or file a petition for discretionary review with the Florida Supreme Court, considering deadlines and preservation of issues.
- 2
Obtain full district court docket and trial record
Request the full opinion (if later published), briefs, and lower-court record to understand the basis for the affirmation and to evaluate grounds for further review.
- 3
Assess enforcement or compliance
If the affirmed judgment imposes obligations or monetary liability, determine the deadline for compliance or post-judgment actions and take steps to satisfy or challenge enforcement as appropriate.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the appeals court decide?
- The appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling; the one-line per curiam entry contains no explanation.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The parties to the appeal—Hydro-Dyne Engineering, Inc. (appellant) and Michael Williams, Scott Griffith, Cornerstone Mechanical, LLC, and Cornerstone H20, LLC (appellees)—are directly affected.
- Does this opinion explain the court's reasoning?
- No. The document is a brief per curiam affirmance and does not include the court's reasoning or analysis.
- Can this decision be further appealed?
- Potentially; options depend on the posture and applicable Florida appellate rules, including seeking rehearing in the district court or discretionary review by the Florida Supreme Court, but the document does not state whether such remedies remain available or were pursued.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
HYDRO-DYNE ENGINEERING, INC.,
Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL WILLIAMS, SCOTT GRIFFITH; CORNERSTONE
MECHANICAL, LLC; and CORNERSTONE H20, LLC,
Appellees.
No. 2D2025-2043
April 17, 2026
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for
Pinellas County; Patricia A. Muscarella, Judge.
Donald A. Mihokovich and Kenneth M. Curtin of Adams and Reese, LLP,
Tampa; Elliot A. Hallak and Megan E. Knepka, admitted pro hac vice of
Harris Beach Murtha Cullina, PLLC, Albany, New York, for Appellant.
Brett P. Owens of Fisher & Phillips, Tampa, for Appellees.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed.
KHOUZAM, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.