KRISIA DEL PRADO v. OPTIMUS U.S. 801 NW 47TH AVE, LLC, etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

KRISIA DEL PRADO v. OPTIMUS U.S. 801 NW 47TH AVE, LLC, etc.

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 1, 2023

Docket21-2101

StatusPublished

This text of KRISIA DEL PRADO v. OPTIMUS U.S. 801 NW 47TH AVE, LLC, etc. (KRISIA DEL PRADO v. OPTIMUS U.S. 801 NW 47TH AVE, LLC, etc.) 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

KRISIA DEL PRADO v. OPTIMUS U.S. 801 NW 47TH AVE, LLC, etc., (Fla. Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed February 1, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-2101 Lower Tribunal No. 19-33861 ________________

Krisia del Prado, Appellant,

vs.

Optimus U.S. 801 NW 47th Ave, LLC, etc., et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge.

Law Office of Michael Garcia Petit, P.A., and Michael Garcia Petit (Miramar), for appellant.

Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A., and Scott M. Dimond and Lorenz Michel Prüss; and Kula & Associates, P.A., and Elliot B. Kula, for appellees.

Before HENDON, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

HENDON, J. Krisia del Prado (“del Prado”) seeks to reverse a September 22, 2021

final judgment following a jury verdict, and a September 29, 2021 order

denying her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”). We

affirm.

An “order on a motion for . . . judgment notwithstanding the verdict is

reviewed de novo." Hernandez v. Mishali, 319 So. 3d 753, 757 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2021). When “deciding the appropriateness of a . . . JNOV, Florida

trial and appellate courts use the test of whether the verdict is . . .

supported by competent, substantial evidence.” Siegel v. Cross Senior

Care, Inc., 239 So. 3d 738, 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Marriott Int'l, Inc. v.

Am. Bridge Bahamas, Ltd., 193 So. 3d 902, 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)

(holding that in reviewing a ruling on a motion for JNOV, “[a]ppellate courts

are required to evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party, and abstain from reweighing any conflicting or

ambiguous evidence presented below”). On de novo review, we find the

verdict is supported by competent, substantial record evidence.

Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment and the order denying del Prado’s

motion for JNOV.

Affirmed.

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