Vladislav Lobidin v. Florida State University

253 So. 3d 1248
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 5, 2018
Docket17-3880
StatusPublished

This text of 253 So. 3d 1248 (Vladislav Lobidin v. Florida State University) 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
Vladislav Lobidin v. Florida State University, 253 So. 3d 1248 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

No. 1D17-3880 _____________________________

VLADISLAV LOBIDIN,

Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Michelle Wilson, Executive Director.

September 5, 2018

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the dismissal of his Whistle- Blower’s Act complaint against Florida State University by the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Appellant contends that the Commission erred by summarily dismissing his complaint on the basis of untimeliness. We agree because, by rule, the sixty-day time period to file a complaint, see § 112.31895(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016), extended “until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.” Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.514(a) (computing time periods for statutes that do not otherwise specify a method of computing time).

In this instance, Appellant’s complaint should not have been summarily dismissed despite being filed on the sixty-second day— May 30, 2017—after the date of harm it identified—March 29, 2017—because the sixtieth day fell on a weekend, and the complaint was filed on the first day following the weekend and holiday Monday. See Johnson v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 190 So. 3d 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (reversing as improper a notice of dismissal entered on timeliness grounds).

We therefore REVERSE and REMAND this matter for additional proceedings.

OSTERHAUS, WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

Marie A. Mattox, Marie A. Mattox, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Lisa C. Scoles, Florida State University, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

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

Related

Cedric Johnson v. Florida Department of Corrections
190 So. 3d 259 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
253 So. 3d 1248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vladislav-lobidin-v-florida-state-university-fladistctapp-2018.