Geico General Insurance Company v. Thomas A. Moultrop and Patricia Guy Moultrop

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Geico General Insurance Company v. Thomas A. Moultrop and Patricia Guy Moultrop

190 So. 3d 124, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 16955, 2015 WL 7018792

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 12, 2015

Docket4D15-2772

StatusPublished

This text of 190 So. 3d 124 (Geico General Insurance Company v. Thomas A. Moultrop and Patricia Guy Moultrop) 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

Geico General Insurance Company v. Thomas A. Moultrop and Patricia Guy Moultrop, 190 So. 3d 124, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 16955, 2015 WL 7018792 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ON RESPONDENTS’ MOTION FOR APPELLATE ATTORNEY’S ⅝' . ' FEES

■PER CURIAM;

Geico General Insurance Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari challenging ah order requiring it to produce documents. Without ordering k response under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(h), this court denied the petition on August 18, 2015; Geico moved for rehearing and, on September 28, 2015, the respondents filed a response to that motion and also moved for attorney’s fees.

Rule 9.400(b)(2) provid.es that “in original proceedings” a motion for attorney’s fees “shall be served not later than ... the time for service of the petitioner’s reply to the response to the petition.” Here, the court denied the petition without requiring a response to the petition or, obyiously, a reply to a response. Having been first filed after the petition had been denied, the motion for appellate attorney’s fees is denied as untimely. .

CIKLIN, C. J., GROSS and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

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

ON RESPONDENTS’ MOTION FOR APPELLATE ATTORNEY’S ⅝' . ' FEES

■PER CURIAM;

Geico General Insurance Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari challenging ah order requiring it to produce documents. Without ordering k response under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(h), this court denied the petition on August 18, 2015; Geico moved for rehearing and, on September 28, 2015, the respondents filed a response to that motion and also moved for attorney’s fees.

Rule 9.400(b)(2) provid.es that “in original proceedings” a motion for attorney’s fees “shall be served not later than ... the time for service of the petitioner’s reply to the response to the petition.” Here, the court denied the petition without requiring a response to the petition or, obyiously, a reply to a response. Having been first filed after the petition had been denied, the motion for appellate attorney’s fees is denied as untimely. .

CIKLIN, C. J., GROSS and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 So. 3d 124, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 16955, 2015 WL 7018792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/geico-general-insurance-company-v-thomas-a-moultrop-and-patricia-guy-fladistctapp-2015.