BRIAN KUEI TUNG v. THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, etc.

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 23, 2020
Docket20-0831
StatusPublished

This text of BRIAN KUEI TUNG v. THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, etc. (BRIAN KUEI TUNG v. THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, etc.) 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
BRIAN KUEI TUNG v. THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, etc., (Fla. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed December 23, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-831 Lower Tribunal No. 04-11813 ________________

Brian Kuei Tung, Appellant,

vs.

The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, etc., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Reemberto Diaz, Judge.

Law Office of Michael Garcia Petit, P.A, and Michael Garcia Petit, for appellant.

Sequor Law, P.A., and Edward H. Davis, Jr., Arnoldo B. Lacayo, Christopher A. Noel and Cristina Vicens Beard, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Avila-Gonzalez, 164 so. 3d

90, 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (stating that “Kozel[1] and its progeny are inapplicable”

where the trial court’s findings are focused on the actions of a litigant rather than

their counsel (citing Levine v. Del Am. Props., Inc., 642 So. 2d 32, 34 (Fla. 5th DCA

1994))); Ledo v. Seavie Res., LLC, 149 So. 3d 707, 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“Since

Ledo was sanctioned for his own failures to comply with court orders . . . Kozel has

no application here.” (citation omitted)); Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla.

1983)2 (“[T]o justify reversal [of a discretionary decision refusing to excuse

noncompliance with court rules], it would have to be shown on appeal that the trial

court clearly erred in its interpretation of the facts and the use of its judgment and

not merely that the court, or another fact-finder, might have made a different factual

determination.”).

1Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993). 2Although Mercer predates Kozel, this Court has recognized its continued viability, particularly that it stands for the “proposition that [a] litigant’s conduct can support extreme sanctions.” Avila-Gonzalez, 164 So. 3d at 93 n.1.

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

Related

Levine v. DEL AM. PROPERTIES, INC.
642 So. 2d 32 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Kozel v. Ostendorf
629 So. 2d 817 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1994)
Mercer v. Raine
443 So. 2d 944 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1983)
Ledo v. Seavie Resources, LLC
149 So. 3d 707 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
BRIAN KUEI TUNG v. THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, etc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brian-kuei-tung-v-the-republic-of-trinidad-and-tobago-etc-fladistctapp-2020.