Joseph Johel Pineda v. Ricky Enrique De Cespedes
Docket 3D2025-0890
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
- 3D2025-0890
Appeal from a non-final order in a civil case in the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County.
Summary
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a nonfinal order from the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court in a civil appeal brought by Joseph Johel Pineda and others against Ricky Enrique De Cespedes. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion on April 22, 2026, and concluded the lower court's order should stand. The opinion is brief, notes the appeal number and counsel, and states the judgment as "Affirmed." No further reasoning or factual discussion is provided in the published docket entry.
Issue Decided
- Whether the nonfinal order entered by the trial court should be reversed on appeal.
Court's Reasoning
The published entry is a short per curiam affirmance and does not include substantive reasoning or citation of legal rules. The appellate panel reviewed the nonfinal order and concluded the trial court's decision should be upheld, resulting in an affirmance without extended explanation in the opinion.
Parties
- Appellant
- Joseph Johel Pineda, et al.
- Appellee
- Ricky Enrique De Cespedes
- Judge
- Migna Sanchez-Llorens
- Attorney
- Samuel T. Lea
- Attorney
- Sharon C. Degnan
- Attorney
- Ralph O. Anderson
Key Dates
- Opinion filed
- 2026-04-22
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider filing a motion for rehearing
If appellants believe there are grounds, they should file a timely motion for rehearing in the Third District per Florida appellate rules to preserve issues for further review.
- 2
Consult appellate counsel
Parties should consult their attorneys to evaluate the merits of rehearing or further review, and to plan any subsequent filings or compliance with the trial court's order.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the appellate court decide?
- The Third District affirmed the trial court's nonfinal order, meaning the lower court's ruling remains in effect.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The primary parties affected are the appellants, Joseph Johel Pineda and others, and the appellee, Ricky Enrique De Cespedes.
- Does the opinion explain why the court affirmed?
- No. The entry is a brief per curiam affirmance and does not include the court's detailed reasoning or citations.
- Can this decision be challenged further?
- The opinion notes it is not final until disposition of any timely motion for rehearing; parties may file such motions or seek further review if authorized under Florida appellate rules.
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
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed April 22,2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-0890
Lower Tribunal No. 24-15899-CA-01
________________
Joseph Johel Pineda, et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
Ricky Enrique De Cespedes,
Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Migna Sanchez-Llorens, Judge.
Kubicki Draper, P.A., and Samuel T. Lea and Sharon C. Degnan
(Orlando), for appellant.
Ralph O. Anderson, P.A., and Ralph O. Anderson (Fort Lauderdale),
for appellee.
Before LINDSEY, MILLER and GORDO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed.
2