GERARDO SANCHEZ AND VICTORIA HURTADO v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 3, 2022
Docket21-0948
StatusPublished

This text of GERARDO SANCHEZ AND VICTORIA HURTADO v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION (GERARDO SANCHEZ AND VICTORIA HURTADO v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION) 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
GERARDO SANCHEZ AND VICTORIA HURTADO v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, (Fla. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed August 3, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-0948 Lower Tribunal No. 20-20627 ________________

Gerardo Sanchez and Victoria Hurtado, Appellants,

vs.

Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mark Blumstein, Judge.

Middagh Law, PLLC and Richard K.E. Middagh; LDP Law & Associates, PA, and Lawrence D. Popritkin (Coral Springs), for appellants.

Shutts & Bowen LLP and George N. Meros, Jr., and Amber Stoner Nunnally (Tallahassee); Russell S. Kent (Tallahassee), for appellees.

Before LINDSEY, HENDON and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Carlile v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm’n, 354 So. 2d 362, 365 (Fla. 1977) (“The so called ‘sword-wielder’ doctrine applies only

in those cases where the official action complained of has in fact been or is

being performed in the county where the suit is filed, or when the threat of

such action in said county is both real and imminent.”); Dep’t of Lab. & Emp.

Sec. v. Lindquist, 698 So. 2d 299, 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (stating that

“sword-wielder doctrine requires that the agency’s threat of action must be

real and imminent rather than contingent and anticipatory to qualify as an

exception to the general rule of venue”); Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. Triple A

Enters., Inc., 387 So. 2d 940, 942 (Fla. 1980) (holding sword-wielder

exception did not apply because threat of official action “was neither real nor

imminent” where Public Service Commission sent letter to plaintiffs advising

their business was operating without commission’s authorization and stating

that if operations did not cease within five days injunction would be sought,

but commission never sought threatened injunction).

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

Related

DEPT. OF LABOR & EMP. SEC. v. Lindquist
698 So. 2d 299 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Carlile v. GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COM'N
354 So. 2d 362 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1977)
FLORIDA PUBLIC SERV. v. Triple" A" Enterprises
387 So. 2d 940 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
GERARDO SANCHEZ AND VICTORIA HURTADO v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gerardo-sanchez-and-victoria-hurtado-v-citizens-property-insurance-fladistctapp-2022.