Pedro Lazaro Lau v. Nizalena Gonzalez

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: April 30, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-1491
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed April 30, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-1491 Lower Tribunal No. 24-9267-FC-04 ________________

Pedro Lazaro Lau, Appellant,

vs.

Nizalena Gonzalez, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Linda Melendez, Judge.

Pedro Lazaro Lau, in proper person.

No appearance, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

GORDO, J. Pedro Lazaro Lau (“Lau”) appeals from a final judgment granting a

permanent injunction for protection against domestic violence to Nizalena

Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”). We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A).

Without a transcript of the hearing on Gonzalez’s petition for injunction for

protection against domestic violence, we are unable to evaluate Lau’s

arguments and determine whether the trial court’s judgment is unsupported

by competent, substantial evidence. As such, we are compelled to affirm.

See Alobaid v. Khan, 306 So. 3d 159, 163 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“We review

the court’s issuance of the final injunction for abuse of discretion and to

determine whether it is supported by competent, substantial evidence. In

doing so, ‘we look at legal sufficiency as opposed to evidentiary weight.’”

(quoting Lopez v. Regalado, 257 So. 3d 550, 554 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)));

Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979)

(“In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption

of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error . . .

Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly

resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s

judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.”).

Affirmed.