ZARRA v. Burke

District Court of Appeal of Florida

ZARRA v. Burke

28 So. 3d 191, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 2073, 2010 WL 624174

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 24, 2010

Docket2D09-1181

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 28 So. 3d 191 (ZARRA v. Burke) 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

ZARRA v. Burke, 28 So. 3d 191, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 2073, 2010 WL 624174 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Christian N. Zarra filed a class action complaint seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the clerk of court’s authority to charge a reopen fee for cases previously reported as disposed of. The complaint also sought a refund of the disputed fees. Zarra made three attempts to amend the complaint to overcome pleading deficiencies. Because the second amended complaint failed to cure the deficiencies, the trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and, thus, did not address the underlying challenge to the reopen fee. Therefore, the only issue before this court, for de novo review, is whether the com[192]*192plaint states a cause of action. See Lutz Lake Fern Rd. Neighborhood Groups, Inc. v. Hillsborough County, 779 So.2d 380 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). In a lengthy order, the trial court noted the pleading deficiencies and explained its reasoning for dismissal. We agree with the trial court’s ruling and, therefore, affirm.

LaROSE, J., and FULMER, CAROLYN K, Senior Judge, Concur. VILLANTI, J., Concurs specially with opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Christian N. Zarra filed a class action complaint seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the clerk of court’s authority to charge a reopen fee for cases previously reported as disposed of. The complaint also sought a refund of the disputed fees. Zarra made three attempts to amend the complaint to overcome pleading deficiencies. Because the second amended complaint failed to cure the deficiencies, the trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and, thus, did not address the underlying challenge to the reopen fee. Therefore, the only issue before this court, for de novo review, is whether the com[192]*192plaint states a cause of action. See Lutz Lake Fern Rd. Neighborhood Groups, Inc. v. Hillsborough County, 779 So.2d 380 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). In a lengthy order, the trial court noted the pleading deficiencies and explained its reasoning for dismissal. We agree with the trial court’s ruling and, therefore, affirm.

LaROSE, J., and FULMER, CAROLYN K, Senior Judge, Concur. VILLANTI, J., Concurs specially with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 So. 3d 191, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 2073, 2010 WL 624174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zarra-v-burke-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack