Anjenie Bello v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, D/B/A Seminole Indian Casino- Coconut Creek

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Anjenie Bello v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, D/B/A Seminole Indian Casino- Coconut Creek

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 8, 2025

Docket4D2023-3044

StatusPublished

This text of Anjenie Bello v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, D/B/A Seminole Indian Casino- Coconut Creek (Anjenie Bello v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, D/B/A Seminole Indian Casino- Coconut Creek) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anjenie Bello v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, D/B/A Seminole Indian Casino- Coconut Creek, (Fla. Ct. App. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

ANJENIE BELLO, Appellant,

v.

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA d/b/a SEMINOLE INDIAN CASINO-COCONUT CREEK, Appellee.

No. 4D2023-3044

[January 8, 2025]

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Shari Africk Olefson, Judge; L.T. Case No. 23-4448 CACE.

Daniel R. Schwartz and Douglas F. Eaton of Eaton & Wolk, P.L., Miami, for appellant.

Mark D. Schellhase, Jordan S. Kosches, and Emily L. Pineless of GrayRobinson, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The lawsuit underlying this appeal arises out of injuries which the appellant, Anjenie Bello, allegedly received during an altercation with a fellow patron at a casino operated by the appellee, Seminole Tribe of Florida d/b/a Seminole Indian Casino-Coconut Creek (“the Tribe”). The parties agree that the appellant: timely submitted the tort claim form required under the 2010 Gaming Compact (“Compact”); voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit, which was brought prematurely under the terms of the Compact; and refiled her suit after the one-year waiting period under the Compact had passed. The Tribe moved to dismiss the refiled lawsuit, asserting that it did not waive sovereign immunity, and arguing that where the suit was initially filed prematurely, the appellant was “forever barred” from bringing her claim. The trial court granted dismissal with prejudice. After this appeal commenced, we issued Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Pupo, 384 So. 3d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), which controls. Based on Pupo, the trial court erred in dismissing Bello’s suit. We accept the Tribe’s confession of error and reverse the dismissal.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

MAY, DAMOORGIAN and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

ANJENIE BELLO, Appellant,

v.

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA d/b/a SEMINOLE INDIAN CASINO-COCONUT CREEK, Appellee.

No. 4D2023-3044

[January 8, 2025]

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Shari Africk Olefson, Judge; L.T. Case No. 23-4448 CACE.

Daniel R. Schwartz and Douglas F. Eaton of Eaton & Wolk, P.L., Miami, for appellant.

Mark D. Schellhase, Jordan S. Kosches, and Emily L. Pineless of GrayRobinson, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The lawsuit underlying this appeal arises out of injuries which the appellant, Anjenie Bello, allegedly received during an altercation with a fellow patron at a casino operated by the appellee, Seminole Tribe of Florida d/b/a Seminole Indian Casino-Coconut Creek (“the Tribe”). The parties agree that the appellant: timely submitted the tort claim form required under the 2010 Gaming Compact (“Compact”); voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit, which was brought prematurely under the terms of the Compact; and refiled her suit after the one-year waiting period under the Compact had passed. The Tribe moved to dismiss the refiled lawsuit, asserting that it did not waive sovereign immunity, and arguing that where the suit was initially filed prematurely, the appellant was “forever barred” from bringing her claim. The trial court granted dismissal with prejudice. After this appeal commenced, we issued Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Pupo, 384 So. 3d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), which controls. Based on Pupo, the trial court erred in dismissing Bello’s suit. We accept the Tribe’s confession of error and reverse the dismissal.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

MAY, DAMOORGIAN and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Anjenie Bello v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, D/B/A Seminole Indian Casino- Coconut Creek, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anjenie-bello-v-seminole-tribe-of-florida-dba-seminole-indian-casino-fladistctapp-2025.