Ekaterina Zakharova v. Innovative Technologies & Consulting Limited Corp.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: November 27, 2024
• Docket: 3D2024-0318
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed November 27, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0318 Lower Tribunal No. 21-22094-CA-01 ________________

Ekaterina Zakharova, Appellant,

vs.

Innovative Technologies & Consulting Limited Corp., et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lourdes Simon, Judge.

Law Guard and Mark W. Rickard (Plantation), for appellant.

Saul Ewing LLP and Carmen Contreras-Martinez, for appellee Ferrari Financial Services, Inc.

Before MILLER, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

GORDO, J. Ekaterina Zakharova (“Zakharova”) appeals an interlocutory order

granting Ferrari Financial Services Inc.’s (“Ferrari”) motion to intervene in

three administratively consolidated cases against her husband, Sergey

Slastikhin (“Slastikhin”), and a final order granting Ferrari’s motion to partially

vacate the agreed final judgment between Zakharova and Slastikhin.

Because the issues on appeal have been fully resolved in the proceedings

below and an appellate decision would have no practical effect, we dismiss

the appeal as moot. See Carlin v. State, 939 So. 2d 245, 247 (Fla. 1st DCA

2006) (“An issue is moot when the controversy has been so fully resolved

that a judicial determination can have no actual effect. It is the function of a

judicial tribunal to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be

carried into effect, and not to give opinions on moot questions, or to declare

principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue. A case

becomes moot, for purposes of appeal, where, by a change of circumstances

prior to the appellate decision, an intervening event makes it impossible for

the court to grant a party any effectual relief . . . As a result, we are

constrained to dismiss the appeal as moot.”) (internal quotations and

citations omitted); Bliven v. Turville, 100 So. 2d 91, 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)

(“It being apparent to the Court that no relief could be afforded the appellant

if this Court should reverse the lower court on a question of law, it would be

2 useless to do so. It is, therefore, the order of the court that the appeal in this

case be dismissed as the subject matter is now moot.”); Friends of the

Everglades, Inc. v. S. Fla. Reg’l Plan. Council, 447 So. 2d 902, 902 (Fla. 3d

DCA 1984) (“Events occurring both before and after the entry of the order

sought to be reviewed have made it apparent that even if this court were to

decide the issues raised on this appeal in appellant's favor, the appellant

would be afforded no relief. Accordingly, since no practical purpose will be

served by a decision, the appeal must be dismissed as moot.”).

Dismissed.