Edward David Colina v. Shiqian Jiang

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: July 16, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-0705
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed July 16, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0705 Lower Tribunal No. 23-1248-FC 04 ________________

Edward David Colina, Appellant,

vs.

Shiqian Jiang, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Donald Cannava, Judge.

Law Offices of Barry M. Wax and Barry M. Wax, for appellant.

Kula & Associates, P.A., W. Aaron Daniel, and Elliot B. Kula, for appellee.

Before EMAS, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 784.046(2)(c)(1), Fla. Stat. (2023) (“A person who is

the victim of sexual violence . . . has standing in the circuit court to file a

verified petition for an injunction for protection against sexual violence on his

or her own behalf . . . if: 1. The person has reported the sexual violence to a

law enforcement agency and is cooperating in any criminal proceeding

against the respondent, regardless of whether criminal charges based on the

sexual violence have been filed, reduced, or dismissed by the state

attorney . . . .”) (emphasis added); State v. Crose, 378 So. 3d 1217, 1236

(Fla. 2d DCA 2024) (“‘The indefinite article a has an accepted sense of “any,”

while the definite article, the, used before a noun specifies a definite and

specific noun . . . .’”) (quoting Covey v. Shaffer, 277 So. 3d 694, 696–97 (Fla.

2d DCA 2019)) (emphasis in original); see also Schmigel v. Schmigel, 404

So. 3d 623, 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025) (“To satisfy due process requirements

at an injunction hearing, the parties must have a reasonable opportunity to

prove or disprove the allegations made in the complaint. . . . This includes

allowing relevant testimony of pertinent, noncumulative witnesses who are

present and cross-examination of the parties.”) (quoting Furry v. Rickles, 68

So. 3d 389, 390 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)); Lopez v. Regalado, 257 So. 3d 550,

555 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (finding no deprivation of procedural due process

where appellant was “present, he was heard, and he addressed the

2 allegations in the petition” and “never claimed he was unprepared, . . . never

requested a continuance, and . . . [a]t no time did [he] proffer evidence that

was rejected by the court or complain that he was not being given an

opportunity to defend himself”).