Kymed, Ltd. v. in Re: The Marriage of Marguerite Malek v. Pierre Marc Malek

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: February 19, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-0086
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed February 19, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________

No. 3D24-0086 Lower Tribunal No. 19-16957 ________________

Kymed, Ltd., Appellant,

vs.

In Re: The Marriage of Marguerite Malek v. Pierre Marc Malek, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jason Emilios Dimitris, Judge.

Martínez-Cid Law, and Jordi C. Martínez-Cid and Whitley Mann; León Cosgrove Jiménez LLP, and Marcos D. Jiménez and Sofia Manzo, for appellant.

Crabtree, Auslander & Tackenberg, and Charles M. Auslander, John G. Crabtree, and Brian C. Tackenberg; Paul A. McKenna & Associates, P.A., and Paul A. McKenna, for appellee Marguerite Malek n/k/a Marguerite Michel.

Before MILLER, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Nat’l Med. Imaging, LLC v. Lyon Fin. Servs., Inc., 347

So. 3d 63, 64 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (holding that subsequent panels of this

Court are bound by the holding of prior panels unless overruled en banc or

by the Florida Supreme Court); Malek v. Malek, 346 So. 3d 179, 182 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2022) (“Identification of Kymed as a party is merely incidental to the

court’s jurisdiction to determine who owns the corporation. . . . On de novo

review of the record on appeal, we conclude there is no arbitrable issue as

between Kymed and Mrs. Malek, Dr. Malek, and Loris. The trial court has

jurisdiction over the parties and can determine the ownership of Kymed for

purposes of partitioning the parties’ properties in the dissolution

proceedings.”); see also Salazar-Abreu v. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts U.S.,

Inc., 277 So. 3d 629, 631 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (explaining that a party must

show prejudice resulting from the action sought to be estopped).