Cataldo v. Daytona State College

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cataldo v. Daytona State College

110 So. 3d 990, 2013 WL 1687867, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6463

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 19, 2013

DocketNo. 5D12-2482

StatusPublished

This text of 110 So. 3d 990 (Cataldo v. Daytona State College) 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

Cataldo v. Daytona State College, 110 So. 3d 990, 2013 WL 1687867, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6463 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jack Cataldo appeals an order of the Florida Commission on Human Relations, which dismissed his discrimination claims against Daytona State College. Cataldo filed his complaint on September 21, 2011, alleging violations of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01-760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes (2011) (“the Act”). Two hundred and forty days later, on May 17, 2012, the Commission issued its order dismissing Cataldo’s claims based upon its determination that Cataldo’s complaint failed to state a claim under the Act. Under a unique provision of the Act, this ostensibly adverse determination is actually treated as a favorable determination because it was not made within 180 days after Cataldo filed his claims. See § 760.11(8), Fla. Stat. (2011) (“In the event that the commission fails to conciliate or determine whether there is reasonable cause on any complaint under this section within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, an aggrieved person may proceed under subsection (4), as if the commission determined that there was reasonable cause.”). The general rule is that “an appeal may be prosecuted only from a [991]*991decree adverse to the appellant. Fountain v. City of Jacksonville, 447 So.2d 353, 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1894) (citation omitted). Because the Commission’s belated dismissal has the same legal effect as a favorable determination, we see no basis for Cataldo to prosecute this appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

LAWSON, JACOBUS and BERGER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jack Cataldo appeals an order of the Florida Commission on Human Relations, which dismissed his discrimination claims against Daytona State College. Cataldo filed his complaint on September 21, 2011, alleging violations of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01-760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes (2011) (“the Act”). Two hundred and forty days later, on May 17, 2012, the Commission issued its order dismissing Cataldo’s claims based upon its determination that Cataldo’s complaint failed to state a claim under the Act. Under a unique provision of the Act, this ostensibly adverse determination is actually treated as a favorable determination because it was not made within 180 days after Cataldo filed his claims. See § 760.11(8), Fla. Stat. (2011) (“In the event that the commission fails to conciliate or determine whether there is reasonable cause on any complaint under this section within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, an aggrieved person may proceed under subsection (4), as if the commission determined that there was reasonable cause.”). The general rule is that “an appeal may be prosecuted only from a [991]*991decree adverse to the appellant. Fountain v. City of Jacksonville, 447 So.2d 353, 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1894) (citation omitted). Because the Commission’s belated dismissal has the same legal effect as a favorable determination, we see no basis for Cataldo to prosecute this appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

LAWSON, JACOBUS and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 So. 3d 990, 2013 WL 1687867, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cataldo-v-daytona-state-college-fladistctapp-2013.