Restoration Genie, Inc., Etc. v. Citizens Property Insurance Company

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: May 27, 2026
• Docket: 3D2026-0303
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May 27, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D26-0303 Lower Tribunal No. 25-174246-SP-05 ________________

Restoration Genie, Inc., etc., Petitioner,

vs.

Citizens Property Insurance Company, Respondent.

A Writ of Certiorari to the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Lawrence D. King, Judge.

Ruiz Legal, PLLC, and Santino Ruiz, for petitioner.

Franklin Legal Group, PA, and Jonathan D. Franklin, for respondent.

Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR Restoration Genie, Inc. (“Restoration Genie”) petitions this Court for a

writ of certiorari and contends that the trial court’s February 11, 2026 Order

as to Taxable Costs and Stay of Proceedings, which granted Citizens

Property Insurance Company’s motion for stay and motion to tax costs as to

the first action which was dismissed on March 5, 2025, should be quashed.

That first action filed by Restoration Genie was dismissed by the trial court

for lack of prosecution. On November 4, 2025, Restoration Genie refiled the

case against Citizens.

Restoration Genie argues that the trial court’s order was entered in

error because Citizens never filed a motion to tax costs after the first action

was dismissed and within the thirty (30) day requirement pursuant to Florida

Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525. Citizens filed its motion for stay on December

18, 2025, and filed its motion to tax costs on January 8, 2026, over three

hundred (300) days after the trial court entered its order dismissing

Restoration Genie’s case for lack of prosecution on March 5, 2025.

Citizens properly confesses error on this point and states that rule

1.525 provides that costs in a dismissed action “shall be assessed and

judgment for costs entered in that action.” Citizens further asserts that the

governing rule in this case is Florida Small Claims Rule 7.110(d) and points

out that there is no material difference between the two rules. Courts require

2 that the motion be filed in the same action. See City of Hallandale v. Chatlos,

236 So. 2d 761, 763 (Fla. 1970); McKelvey v. Kismet, Inc., 430 So. 2d 919,

921-22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

Accordingly, we grant Restoration Genie’s petition for writ of certiorari

as to the trial court’s February 11, 2026 order, quash the order and remand

for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Petition granted, order quashed.