Miami-Dade Medical Centers, Inc. v. MGA Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Miami-Dade Medical Centers, Inc. v. MGA Insurance Co.

908 So. 2d 1175, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 13597, 2005 WL 2030386

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 24, 2005

DocketNo. 3D05-1484

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 908 So. 2d 1175 (Miami-Dade Medical Centers, Inc. v. MGA Insurance Co.) 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

Miami-Dade Medical Centers, Inc. v. MGA Insurance Co., 908 So. 2d 1175, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 13597, 2005 WL 2030386 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We grant Miami-Dade Medical Centers, Inc.’s petition for writ of certiorari and quash the order of the Circuit Court Appellate Division dismissing its appeal.

The Appellate Division dismissed petitioner’s appeal for failure to file its initial brief. As the respondent correctly asserts, the dismissal of petitioner’s appeal was preceded by three dismissal motions, all premised on petitioner’s failure to file the brief timely. However, none of the Appellate Division’s extension orders indicated that no further extensions would be allowed, or contained any equivalent language. “[T]he great weight of Florida authority holds that the failure to file an initial brief by the deadline is not sufficient cause to justify dismissal of the appeal, unless there has been fair warning, in advance, that this consequence may flow from a late filing.” United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Total Rehab & Med. Ctr., 870 So.2d 866, 869 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)(en banc); Lindsey v. King, 894 So.2d 1058, 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Hence, as in United Auto. Ins. Co., 870 So.2d at 868, petitioner “had no fair warning that dismissal could result from failure to file the appellant’s initial brief by the deadline.... ” We are therefore forced to “conclude that there has been a departure from the essential requirements of law, as the law in this area is well-established.” Id. at 869.

Certiorari granted; order quashed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We grant Miami-Dade Medical Centers, Inc.’s petition for writ of certiorari and quash the order of the Circuit Court Appellate Division dismissing its appeal.

The Appellate Division dismissed petitioner’s appeal for failure to file its initial brief. As the respondent correctly asserts, the dismissal of petitioner’s appeal was preceded by three dismissal motions, all premised on petitioner’s failure to file the brief timely. However, none of the Appellate Division’s extension orders indicated that no further extensions would be allowed, or contained any equivalent language. “[T]he great weight of Florida authority holds that the failure to file an initial brief by the deadline is not sufficient cause to justify dismissal of the appeal, unless there has been fair warning, in advance, that this consequence may flow from a late filing.” United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Total Rehab & Med. Ctr., 870 So.2d 866, 869 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)(en banc); Lindsey v. King, 894 So.2d 1058, 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Hence, as in United Auto. Ins. Co., 870 So.2d at 868, petitioner “had no fair warning that dismissal could result from failure to file the appellant’s initial brief by the deadline.... ” We are therefore forced to “conclude that there has been a departure from the essential requirements of law, as the law in this area is well-established.” Id. at 869.

Certiorari granted; order quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

908 So. 2d 1175, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 13597, 2005 WL 2030386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miami-dade-medical-centers-inc-v-mga-insurance-co-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack