Sadallah v. Sera Martell Realty, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sadallah v. Sera Martell Realty, Inc.

650 So. 2d 653, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 969

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 8, 1995

DocketNo. 93-3074

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 650 So. 2d 653 (Sadallah v. Sera Martell Realty, Inc.) 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

Sadallah v. Sera Martell Realty, Inc., 650 So. 2d 653, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 969 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s final order of dismissal of appellant’s counterclaim and cross-claim without leave to amend.

Although appellant is now pro se, she was represented by counsel when her initial and reply briefs were filed. The initial brief contains a proposed “Second Amended Counterclaim” and “Second Amended Third Party Complaint,” which proposed pleadings are sua sponte stricken, there being nothing to reflect either was presented to the trial court in any fashion — by a proper pleading accompanied by an appropriate motion for leave to file same, or by a transcript of any hearing which reflects counsel requested an opportunity to present these allegations in pleadings.

Examination of the record which is properly before us reveals neither error in discussing what pleadings the trial court had before it, nor abuse of discretion in refusing to permit further amendment.

DELL, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s final order of dismissal of appellant’s counterclaim and cross-claim without leave to amend.

Although appellant is now pro se, she was represented by counsel when her initial and reply briefs were filed. The initial brief contains a proposed “Second Amended Counterclaim” and “Second Amended Third Party Complaint,” which proposed pleadings are sua sponte stricken, there being nothing to reflect either was presented to the trial court in any fashion — by a proper pleading accompanied by an appropriate motion for leave to file same, or by a transcript of any hearing which reflects counsel requested an opportunity to present these allegations in pleadings.

Examination of the record which is properly before us reveals neither error in discussing what pleadings the trial court had before it, nor abuse of discretion in refusing to permit further amendment.

DELL, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

650 So. 2d 653, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sadallah-v-sera-martell-realty-inc-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack