Jonathan Padilla v. Capital One, N.A.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: August 28, 2024
• Docket: 2023-2971
• Status: Published

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

JONATHAN PADILLA, Appellant,

v.

CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Appellee.

Nos. 4D2023-2732, 4D2023-2971 and 4D2023-3102

[August 28, 2024]

Consolidated appeals of nonfinal orders from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Robert W. Lee, Judge; L.T. Case No. COCE23-059765.

Jonathan Padilla, Cooper City, pro se.

Ramiro G. Kruss of Pollack & Rosen P.A., Coral Gables, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to quash service of process and the subsequent denial of his motion for sanctions and motion to dismiss. The orders denying appellant’s motion for sanctions and motion to dismiss are not appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, and we therefore dismiss the appeal as to those orders. We affirm the order denying appellant’s motion to quash service of process.

Appellant claims he was denied due process when the motion to quash was scheduled at a time for which he had filed a notice of unavailability. However, he did not move for a continuance. “Although a notice of unavailability is a useful pleading for apprising the court and the parties of potential scheduling conflicts and for assisting them in efforts to accommodate counsel, it is not an adequate substitute for obtaining a continuance order.” Delio v. Landman, 987 So. 2d 733, 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). And while appellant apparently tried to attend the hearing by Zoom, the motion was set for an in-person hearing, and appellant never made a motion to appear using communication technology. See Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.530(b). Finally, because there is no transcript of the hearing, and the trial court’s ruling comes to us with the presumption of correctness, appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979).

Affirmed as to the order denying appellant’s motion to quash service of process; dismissed as to the orders denying appellant’s motion for sanctions and motion to dismiss.

WARNER, MAY and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.