Ibrahim v. Premier Advisory Services, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ibrahim v. Premier Advisory Services, Inc.

860 So. 2d 1016, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18340, 2003 WL 22849818

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 3, 2003

DocketNo. 3D03-732

StatusPublished

This text of 860 So. 2d 1016 (Ibrahim v. Premier Advisory Services, Inc.) 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

Ibrahim v. Premier Advisory Services, Inc., 860 So. 2d 1016, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18340, 2003 WL 22849818 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendants, Mohamad Ibrahim and Outpatient Care Center, Inc., appeal from an adverse final summary judgment. The defendants’ contentions wholly lack merit. First, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and Huttner’s supporting affidavit were properly served in accordance with the trial court’s order and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080(b), (f). Next, the body of the motion for summary judgment requested the relief awarded. Impact Computers & Elecs. v. Bank of Am., 852 So.2d 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Further, the trial court properly struck Ibrahim’s affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment where it was not timely served and filed in bad faith. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c), (g). Lastly, the defendants failed to raise Ibrahim’s earlier filed affidavit to the trial court. See Florida High School Activities, Inc. v. Latimer, 750 So.2d 762 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Because there were no genuine issues of material fact remaining, the trial court properly entered final summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendants, Mohamad Ibrahim and Outpatient Care Center, Inc., appeal from an adverse final summary judgment. The defendants’ contentions wholly lack merit. First, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and Huttner’s supporting affidavit were properly served in accordance with the trial court’s order and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080(b), (f). Next, the body of the motion for summary judgment requested the relief awarded. Impact Computers & Elecs. v. Bank of Am., 852 So.2d 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Further, the trial court properly struck Ibrahim’s affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment where it was not timely served and filed in bad faith. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c), (g). Lastly, the defendants failed to raise Ibrahim’s earlier filed affidavit to the trial court. See Florida High School Activities, Inc. v. Latimer, 750 So.2d 762 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Because there were no genuine issues of material fact remaining, the trial court properly entered final summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

860 So. 2d 1016, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18340, 2003 WL 22849818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ibrahim-v-premier-advisory-services-inc-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack