Filomia v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: April 24, 2019
• Docket: 18-2208
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed April 24, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D18-2208 Lower Tribunal No. 18-2141 ________________

Ingrid Filomia, Appellant,

vs.

Celebrity Cruises Inc. and Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission, Appellees.

An Administrative appeal from the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission.

Ingrid Filomia, in proper person.

Amanda L. Neff (Tallahassee), Deputy General Counsel & Chief Appellate Attorney, for appellee Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission.

Before EMAS, C.J., and SALTER, and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Although we are sympathetic to appellant’s personal tragedy, it is well-

settled that “in appellate proceedings . . . the burden is on the appellant to

demonstrate error,” thus, we affirm.1 Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahasee,

377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979); see Steele v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals

Comm’n, 596 So. 2d 1190, 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (“The burden of properly

presenting a case to this court for review must therefore remain squarely upon the

litigant, whether represented by counsel or not.”); see also J.A.B. Enters. v.

Gibbons, 596 So. 2d 1247, 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (“[A]n issue not raised in an

initial brief is deemed abandoned.”) (citations omitted).

Affirmed.

1“In Florida, pro se litigants are bound by the same rules that apply to counsel.” Stueber v. Gallagher, 812 So. 2d 454, 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (citing Kohn v. City of Miami Beach, 611 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)).