Pankau v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pankau v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles

147 So. 3d 1030, 2014 WL 3882418, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12225

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 8, 2014

Docket2D13-5373

StatusPublished

This text of 147 So. 3d 1030 (Pankau v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles) 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

Pankau v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 147 So. 3d 1030, 2014 WL 3882418, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12225 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

LaROSE, Judge.

Joseph Ferrei seeks certiorari review of a circuit court order denying his motion for clarification. We have jurisdiction, see Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(2)(B), and grant the petition.

’ In Ferrei v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 91 So.3d 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), we quashed a circuit court order that denied Mr. Ferrei certio-rari relief from an administrative decision upholding the suspension of his driver’s license. See §§ 322.2615(1), (6), (14), .31, Fla. Stat. (2008). We directed the circuit court to consider whether an adequate mechanism existed for Mr. Ferrei to challenge the lawfulness of the underlying traffic stop. Ferrei 91 So.3d at 921. The circuit court then reconsidered Mr. Fer-rei’s certiorari petition, quashed the Department’s final order upholding his li *1031 cense suspension, and remanded the cause to the Department for further proceedings.

Mr. Ferrei’s license suspension period expired during the review period. In light of our holding in McLaughlin v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 128 So.Bd 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), he moved for clarification of the order in the circuit court. When the circuit court denied his motion, he petitioned this court for second-tier certiorari review to determine whether the circuit court afforded due process and applied the correct law. See Forth v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, — So.3d—, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D1352 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (citations omitted). Under McLaughlin, 128 So.3d at 815, and Forth, — So.3d-, at *1, we held that when the Department administratively suspends a driver’s license, and the suspension period expires while a matter is under review but the department seeks further formal administrative hearings, the circuit court should quash the administrative order, rather than quash and remand for further proceedings. “[N]o further proceedings are necessary on remand because the issue of the validity of the suspension of [the] driver’s license is moot.” McLaughlin, 128 So.3d at 815. The circuit court failed to apply the correct law when it remanded the moot issue to the administrative tribunal. Forth, — So.3d-, at *1.

Petition granted; order quashed insofar as it remanded the case.

ALTENBERND and KELLY, JJ„ Concur.

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

LaROSE, Judge.

Joseph Ferrei seeks certiorari review of a circuit court order denying his motion for clarification. We have jurisdiction, see Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(2)(B), and grant the petition.

’ In Ferrei v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 91 So.3d 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), we quashed a circuit court order that denied Mr. Ferrei certio-rari relief from an administrative decision upholding the suspension of his driver’s license. See §§ 322.2615(1), (6), (14), .31, Fla. Stat. (2008). We directed the circuit court to consider whether an adequate mechanism existed for Mr. Ferrei to challenge the lawfulness of the underlying traffic stop. Ferrei 91 So.3d at 921. The circuit court then reconsidered Mr. Fer-rei’s certiorari petition, quashed the Department’s final order upholding his li *1031 cense suspension, and remanded the cause to the Department for further proceedings.

Mr. Ferrei’s license suspension period expired during the review period. In light of our holding in McLaughlin v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 128 So.Bd 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), he moved for clarification of the order in the circuit court. When the circuit court denied his motion, he petitioned this court for second-tier certiorari review to determine whether the circuit court afforded due process and applied the correct law. See Forth v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, — So.3d—, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D1352 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (citations omitted). Under McLaughlin, 128 So.3d at 815, and Forth, — So.3d-, at *1, we held that when the Department administratively suspends a driver’s license, and the suspension period expires while a matter is under review but the department seeks further formal administrative hearings, the circuit court should quash the administrative order, rather than quash and remand for further proceedings. “[N]o further proceedings are necessary on remand because the issue of the validity of the suspension of [the] driver’s license is moot.” McLaughlin, 128 So.3d at 815. The circuit court failed to apply the correct law when it remanded the moot issue to the administrative tribunal. Forth, — So.3d-, at *1.

Petition granted; order quashed insofar as it remanded the case.

ALTENBERND and KELLY, JJ„ Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 So. 3d 1030, 2014 WL 3882418, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pankau-v-department-of-highway-safety-motor-vehicles-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack