Lorene Murphy v. Alexa Spinoso, Etc.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: February 19, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-2293
• 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. 3D24-2293 Lower Tribunal No. 21-4524-CP-02 ________________

Lorene Murphy, Petitioner,

vs.

Alexa Spinoso, etc., et al., Respondents.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Yvonne Colodny, Judge.

The Law Office of Kelly D. Feig, P.A., and Kelly D. Feig (Hallandale Beach), for petitioner.

The Billbrough Firm, and G. Bart Billbrough, for respondents, Alexa Spinoso, Steven Spinoso, and Austin R. Murphy.

Before FERNANDEZ, BOKOR, and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM. We hereby dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari as untimely. The

Petitioner objected to Respondents’ notice of production from non-party.

The trial court overruled those objections on August 5, 2024. The very next

day, the Petitioner moved for reconsideration of that order and her counsel

filed a motion for protective order making the same arguments. While these

motions were pending, the Petitioner did not timely seek certiorari review of

the August 5, 2024, order in this Court.

The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration on October 30,

2024, and counsel’s motion for protective order on December 17, 2024.

Petitioner filed the petition for certiorari on December 20, 2024.

The petition should have been filed within thirty days of the August 5,

2024, order. Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(c); § 59.081(2), Fla. Stat. (2024) (“Failure

to invoke the jurisdiction of any such court within the time prescribed by such

rules shall divest such court of jurisdiction to review such cause.”). Petitioner

cannot evade the strict time requirements set forth in Florida Rule of

Appellate Procedure 9.100 by having her counsel file a second motion

directed at the very same issue. See Decktight Roofing Services, Inc. v.

Amwest Sur. Ins., 841 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Bensonhurst

Drywall, Inc. v. Ledesma, 583 So. 2d 1094, 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991);

Blades v. Henry, 720 So. 2d 323, 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The filing of

2 successive motions does not revive or extend the time to file a petition for

writ of certiorari.

Dismissed.