Krisia Del Prado v. Optimus U.S. 801 NW 47th Ave, LLC, etc.
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.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed March 20, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-1168 Lower Tribunal No. 19-33861 ________________
Krisia Del Prado, et al., Appellants,
vs.
Optimus U.S. 801 NW 47th Ave, LLC, etc., et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lisa S. Walsh, Judge.
Law Office of Michael Garcia Petit, P.A., and Michael Garcia Petit (Miramar), for appellants.
Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A., and Scott M. Dimond and Lorenz Michel Prüss, for appellees.
Before LINDSEY, LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Garcia v. Christiana Tr., 230 So. 3d 66, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA
2017) (requiring “the moving party to ‘allege new [post-judgment]
circumstances affecting the decision made by the trial judge’”) (quoting
Gotham Ins. Co. v. Matthew, 179 So. 3d 437, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015));
United States v. Watts, 786 F.3d 152, 160 (2d Cir. 2015) (“As a general
matter, the section clarifies that ‘[a]ll right, title, and interest in property . . .
[subject to criminal forfeiture] vests in the United States upon the commission
of the act giving rise to forfeiture.’”) (alteration in original) (quoting 21 U.S.C.
§ 853(c)); Baker v. Baker, 920 So. 2d 689, 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“[T]his
court has held that the equities mentioned in [Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(5)] are
limited to ones that come to fruition after the final judgment.”); Pure H2O
Biotechnologies, Inc. v. Mazziotti, 937 So. 2d 242, 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
(explaining that “Rule 1.540(b)(5) was designed to provide ‘extraordinary
relief’ in exceptional circumstances, and is to be narrowly construed”)
(citations omitted); Toledano v. Garcia, 338 So. 3d 1009, 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA
2022) (noting abuse of discretion standard in reviewing an order denying a
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b) motion); see also § 605.0108(1), Fla. Stat. (“A limited
liability company is an entity distinct from its members.”); Corp. Express Off.
Prods., Inc. v. Phillips, 847 So. 2d 406, 411 (Fla. 2003) (“A foundation of
2 corporate law is that . . . the existence of a corporate entity is not affected by
changes in its ownership or changes in management.”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Krisia Del Prado v. Optimus U.S. 801 NW 47th Ave, LLC, etc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krisia-del-prado-v-optimus-us-801-nw-47th-ave-llc-etc-fladistctapp-2024.