text:
    Keon CHAMBERS a/k/a Keion Chambers, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1173 3D17-1172
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 25, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed. Affirmed and reversed in part.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    Jose BECERRA, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0595
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    JULY 12, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    ANDROS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Orlando BENITIZ, Jr., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-0675
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    MARCH 28, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Mario Alfredo MENDEZ, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Lourdes Ivette MENDEZ, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s).
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1245
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    SEPTEMBER 18, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Sharon ROZIER, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1232
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    JULY 11, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    William E. OGLE, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1343
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    JULY 11, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Ubaldo PEREZ, Jr., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Magdalene MARMOLEJO, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1366
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    JULY 07, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.

Granted. Dismissed.


text:
    Delkys Lazara Jorge HERNANDEZ, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1590
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 29, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Kelvin D. HARRIS, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1944
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 29, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Stricken pursuant to this Court's April 19, 2013 order prohibiting further pro se appeals by this defendant as to lower case number 90-9210.


text:
    British Dewan MOSS, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1745
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 14, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Quentin WYCHE, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1541
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    JULY 12, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Anthony DAVIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1722
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed September 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Rajesh Randy GANIES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-1568
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed September 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Unknown Spouse of Roza MARTIN, a/k/a Rosa Martin, Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee FOR ARGENT SECURITIES INC. ASSET BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-W1, Appellee.
    No. 3D16-2665
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed September 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    James E. JACKSON, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),
    CASE NO.: 3D17-1956
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    AUGUST 29, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Denied.


text:
    Terrence RIDGEWAY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D16-2660
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed September 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Roberto KASINSKY, Appellant, v. Richard John DIAZ, and Richard J. Diaz, P.A., Appellees.
    No. 3D16-2223
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed September 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael O'RIORDAN, Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Appellee.
    No. 3D16-1929
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed September 20, 2017.
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.A., A juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D16-1649
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed September 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Shantal BARRILLAS, Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
    No. 3D16-961
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed September 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Audrey RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D15-2816
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed September 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Clinton JORDAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D17-009
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed September 20, 2017 Rehearing Denied October 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Robert LANCASTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 3D16-744
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed September 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Marquez T. RUDOLPH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2429
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [October 19, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Robert Earl EALY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2568
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [October 12, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Alain CUPAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-3153
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [October 12, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Marckenson DEMARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-3520
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    October 12, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Appellant, v. Martin E. O'BOYLE, Jonathan R. O'Boyle, William Ring, Ryan Witmer, Christopher O'Hare, Denise Demartini, Public Awareness Institute, Inc., Citizens Awareness Foundation, Inc., Our Public Records, LLC, StopDirty Government, LLC, Commerce Group, Inc., and The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Inc., Appellees.
    Nos. 4D16-3386 4D16-3634
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 2, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Sergio MEDINA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3005
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [October 26, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Randy HEIMLER, Appellant, v. Leonard KRENEK and Delayne Krenek, Appellees.
    No. 4D16-2184
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [October 19, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Lensky M. JEANBART, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-2521
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 9, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Alfredo LEON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-2544
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 9, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Fernando Ivan HINESTROZA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-2925
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    November 9, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Robert FRASER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2533
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 2, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Yari CHEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2589
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    November 9, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Ana M. RAMIREZ, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee.
    No. 4D15-4626
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 9, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    M.D.F., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-1092
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    November 9, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Tyrell COBBIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-1274
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 9, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Chancy MALLORY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-1392
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 9, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Raul CAMACHO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-1426
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 9, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jonathan PEAVY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-2452
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 9, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    M.D.F., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-2965
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 9, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Weddy LUXAMA, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-0391
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 16, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Yaakov VANN, Appellant, v. ICE LEGAL, P.A., and Thomas E. Ice, Appellees.
    No. 4D16-2348
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 16, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Russell LEWIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-4096
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    November 9, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Roosevelt MONDESIR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2219
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 9, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Paul NAPOLEONI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-2605
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 16, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Dallas SEYMOUR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-2964
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 16, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Charlene SCARFONE, Appellant, v. Jared FREID, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-4223
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 16, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Piero A. BUGONI, Appellant, v. Pam BONDI, Taylor O'Brien, Lindsay Turnbull, Sharon Bilu and John Megally, Appellees.
    No. 4D16-4242
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 16, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Travis Lee KENDRICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-559
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael L. JACKSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-1847
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Brian M. CASEY, Appellant, v. Julie JONES, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-1757
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 16, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Rodney BURCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2808
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 16, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Frederick RUTHERFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2673
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Trimidus MILLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2728
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Patrick ELISCAR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2806
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Hardy DICKERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2807
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael A. MOORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2809
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    James BEAVER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2935
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Donald JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2970
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Elias ROSADO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3193
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Larry HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-863
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Timothy WILLSON and Kimberly Willson, Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Appellee.
    No. 4D15-552
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    AQUARIUM RETAIL HOLDINGS, INC., d/b/a Big Al's, Aquarium Supercenter, Appellant, v. Michael W. BRANDT and Central Garden and Pet Company, Appellees.
    No. 4D16-1481
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Antonio HESTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-3604
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Penni L. CONROY, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Thomas Regis Conroy, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-4119
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kevin FITSER, Appellant, v. Marlene MENELLY, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-1319
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Fred GRAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2747
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Robert HEMMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-1430
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    November 30, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Leopoldo RUIZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2975
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jose M. PEREZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Nos. 4D15-4298 & 4D16-815
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Josue LOPEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-1513
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 22, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Sidney SPIEGEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Town of Palm Beach, a Florida municipal corporation, and Sterling Palm Beach, LLC, Appellees.
    No. 4D16-3385
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 30, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Darnell MCLEOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2648
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 30, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Allister A. FREEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3121
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 30, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    R.G., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-1039
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 30, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    David HADDEN, Appellant, v. The DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF BROWARD COLLEGE d/b/a Broward College, Mercedes A. Quiroga, in her individual and official capacities, Gregory A. Haile, in his individual and official capacities, and Melissa Hoffman, in her individual and official capacities, Appellees.
    No. 4D16-3932
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 30, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Derrick PETTIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2992
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 30, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jesse Cleveland HARRELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3070
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 30, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Marlon M. BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2217
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 30, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Joseph Edward NEWNAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2400
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 30, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Samuel Edward ODOM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2492
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 30, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Leon KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3065
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    November 30, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Miguel A. BARRIOS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3174
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 30, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Torris Bernard HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2918
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 30, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Roshan RAMKHELAWAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D16-1275
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    November 30, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Hilton WIENER, Appellant, v. Ila WIENER n/k/a Ila Lerner, Appellee.
    No. 4D15-4466
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [December 7, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Anthony TURNER and Susan Turner, Appellants, v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP., Appellee.
    No. 4D14-535
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    December 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Ann Marie SANDS and William J. Sands, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Nos. 4D16-692 4D16-693
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    December 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Raymonde FONTIL, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Wachovia Bank, National Association, as Trustee for GSMPS Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-RP3, Dupervil Pierre a/k/a Duperville Pierre, Rainier Realty Group, Inc., Salvatore J. Davide, as Successor Trustee, City of Miramar, Florida, and United States of America on behalf of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Appellees.
    No. 4D16-4003
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [November 30, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Terrance D. WRIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2588
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    December 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Henry SANDOVAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2825
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [December 7, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Frederick FOSTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-2871
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    December 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Daniel DOWNS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3028
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [December 7, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    CHAI DEVELOPERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Florida limited partnership, Appellant, v. GFS STORES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Appellee.
    Nos. 4D16-1490 4D16-3243
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [December 14, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jesse Cleveland HARRELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3071
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [December 7, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jonathan E. HUGHES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-3110
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    December 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Lesley FOSTER and Ronald Foster, Appellants, v. PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Successor by Merger to National City Bank, as Successor by Merger to National City Mortgage Co., Appellee.
    No. 4D16-3284
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [December 21, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    M.M., the mother, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.
    No. 4D17-2869
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [December 18, 2017]
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    James P. LANIER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2044
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 3, 2017 Rehearing Denied December 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Ricky R. MCCULLOUGH, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2277
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 10, 2017 Rehearing Denied December 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    David FIGGS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1195
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 10, 2017 Rehearing Denied November 9, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Charles SEMKO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-769
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 10, 2017 Rehearing Denied November 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    David G. KNOUSE, Appellant, v. Kevin O'BRIEN, Jody A. Seltzer, Hancock Bank, Climate Control Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., Intercoastal Construction Company, Inc., Appellees.
    Case No. 5D16-3622
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 3, 2017 Rehearing Denied November 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Ikaika KAIO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2578
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Chris FOSTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3035
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 17, 2017 Rehearing Denied November 21, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Lamar Lee MADDOX, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-512
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 17, 2017 Rehearing Denied November 22, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    John T. BURT, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and State of Florida, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D16-4453
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 10, 2017 Rehearing Denied November 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Denver Ivan WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2228
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Douglas A. MORIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1732
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 24, 2017 Rehearing Denied November 22, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Larry L. BRINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1511
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 24, 2017 Rehearing Denied November 21, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Douglas A. MORIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1731
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 24, 2017 Rehearing Denied November 22, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Ray Curtis GREENLAW, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2345
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017 Rehearing Denied December 5, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    William Craig COTHRAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-945
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Arturo ALEMAN-DIAZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-810
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jockue H. HILLMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-527
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Donathan Ulyssis LECORN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-618
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Sylvia Hall AGARO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-585
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kyle POTTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-436
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kenneth Jerome KIRKLAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-347
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Verl Joseph SOLANO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-127
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Christopher Lawrence SCHLOUGH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-4126
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jabez BOAZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-4029
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Tory K. EAST, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-3997
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Shaunte CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-3599
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jerel Denee KENT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-3530
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kathleen SHORT, Appellant, v. Catherine LENHART and GEICO General Insurance Company, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D16-2265
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Patrick AUGUSTE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-204
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed October 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Leroy R. GADSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-923
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Alan M. ASPINWALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-916
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kerrie LYNCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-915
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kerrie C. LYNCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-4424
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    John Douglas BONNELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-481
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Eric BEAVER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-406
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kagen Taylor LIBBY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-4085
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Abbiezer VIVAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-3593
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jeffrey RODGERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-205
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    James M. BOYES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-25
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    James Alan GLENN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-4389
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jaquan K. NEWMONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-3977
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jimmy SANTIAGO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1774
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 14, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kortney KILLINGSWORTH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1200
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 14, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Joshua JAMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-2514
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 14, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Ryan Michael, Santana MORALES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-3502
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Kalvain TATUM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2409
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 14, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    William Cameron PERKINS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1554
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 14, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Lawrence WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-874
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 14, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Jordan HUGGINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case Nos. 5D17-486 5D17-500 5D17-535
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 14, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Josh NEGRON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-4432
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 14, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Alexander GREENE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-4337
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 14, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Rodric Dwayne FAGIOLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-2966
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 14, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Charlene BENBOW, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-208
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 14, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    INTEGRITY HOME HEALTH CARE, INC., Appellant, v. CACH, LLC, Diana Kornetti and Sherry Teague, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D17-1461
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 21, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Vinnette RIVERA and her Assignee National Equity Recovery Services, Inc., Appellant, v. ESTATE OF Pedro YANES a/k/a Pedro Yanes-Ramos, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-626
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 21, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Michael B. KINEARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-353
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 21, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Andrew GLOBIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-3049
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 14, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Daneal Jusmon IRONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-47
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 21, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Daniel B. RESLIER, Appellant, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION and Holly Reslier, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D17-43
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 21, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    DOLL HOUSE, INC., Toren J. Veigle, Carol A. Uranick, Rhonda R. Uranick and Goldstar Management, LLC, Appellants, v. Ninoska TAPIA, Crystal Kenny, Charlotte Alvarado Perez on Behalf of Themselves Individually and the Proposed Florida Rule 1.220 Class, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D16-4235 5D16-4455
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 21, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Malcolm WRIGHT, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK, N.A., Successor Trustee to Bank of America, N.A., Successor by Merger to Lasalle Bank, N.A., as Trustee, etc., et al., Appellees.
    Case No. 5D16-4162
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 21, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Romesh KEVADIA and Vilas Kevadia, Appellants, v. STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS II, INC., Bear Sterns Arm Trust, Mortgage Pass-through Certificates, Series 2006-2, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, et al. Appellees.
    Case No. 5D16-3686
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 21, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Richard John JACKMAN, Appellant, v. Miranda Sue JACKMAN, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D16-3728
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 21, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    PALM GARDEN HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, LLC, Palm Garden of Ocala, LLC and Palm Healthcare Management, LLC (as to Palm Garden of Ocala), Appellant, v. ESTATE OF Shirley H. KAPPLER BY AND THROUGH Dr. Max KAPPLER, Jr., Personal Representative, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2028
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 21, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    S.T., Father of J.C., a Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2201
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Carl R. LEE and Patricia Lee, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1807
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed December 5, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Lorelle FRIEND, Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-1508 CORRECTED
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed December 5, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    HAGERTYSMITH, LLC, Appellant, v. Timothy GERLANDER, Christine Gerlander, Kashif Battla, Mark Phaneuf and Roseann Phaneuf, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D16-3655
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Opinion filed December 1, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   REVERSED. REMANDED.


text:
    Roy BROWN, Appellant, v. Marilyn K. MONTGOMERY, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Edward W. Risner, Jr. and Diane Brown, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D17-71
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed November 21, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


text:
    Stephen A. TOUMAJAN, Appellant, v. Donna L. TOUMAJAN, Appellee.
    Case No. 5D17-2020
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Decision filed December 5, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   AFFIRMED.


author: Klingensmith, J.

text:
    CABO FLATS JUPITER, LLC, Appellant, v. Lena DAWLEY, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-1678
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    [January 24, 2018]
    Gary S. Phillips of Phillips Cantor & Shalek, P.A., Hollywood, for appellant.
    Carol A. Gart of Carol A. Gart, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee.
   Klingensmith, J.

Plaintiff, Lena Dawley, obtained a judgment against PGA Mexx, LLC ("PGA"). Thereafter, Dawley filed a writ of garnishment to seize $15,350 that Cabo Flats Jupiter, LLC ("Cabo Jupiter") allegedly owed to PGA. Cabo Jupiter claims that the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Dawley was improper. We agree.

Appellant's notice of deposition was addressed specifically to Delia Valles, Cabo Jupiter's director of finance for Cabo Flats' chain of franchisees, and not as "the corporate representative" with respect to accounting inquiries. Valles testified during her deposition that she believed that Cabo Jupiter was indebted to PGA in the amount of $15,350. As a result, Dawley filed a motion for summary judgment and argued that Cabo Jupiter's testimony directly supported her right to the $15,350. Cabo Jupiter filed an affidavit in opposition to the motion signed by Steven Fuller, a certified public accountant for PGA and Cabo Jupiter. In the affidavit he disputed the testimony of Valles, and asserted that the in-house accountant did not always make appropriate journal entries as transactions occurred. He further alleged that the owner of the parent company overseeing Cabo Jupiter and PGA was credited the $15,350 against funds due to him from the corporation. Fuller maintained that Cabo Jupiter was not indebted to PGA. Based on Valles' deposition testimony, the trial court granted Dawley's motion for summary judgment.

The standard of review for a trial court's ruling on a summary judgment is de novo. See Volusia Cty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P. , 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000). "A summary judgment should not be granted unless the facts are so crystallized that nothing remains but questions of law." Moore v. Morris , 475 So.2d 666, 668 (Fla. 1985). A corporation, when met with a motion for summary judgment, may not contradict its previous deposition testimony via affidavit to create a material issue of fact; however, an exception arises when the affidavit contains a credible explanation by the affiant for the discrepancy between earlier and later testimony. See Carriage Hills Condo., Inc. v. JBH Roofing & Constructors, Inc. , 109 So.3d 329, 335-36 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

In this case, Valles testified that she believed that Cabo Jupiter was indebted to PGA. Additionally, Fuller's affidavit contained a credible explanation as to why Valles wrongly believed Cabo Jupiter to be indebted to PGA. See id. As such, there remained a material issue of fact as to whether Cabo Jupiter was indebted to PGA.

We hold that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Dawley, and therefore remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded .

Taylor and Forst, JJ., concur.


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    Ada A. GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. CLERK OF COURT-DOMESTIC RELATION-SEMINOLE COUNTY COURT and Alfredo E. Gonzalez, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D17-3261
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Opinion filed December 19, 2017
    Ada A. Gonzalez, Tallahassee, pro se.
    Susan E. Dietrich, Sanford, for Appellee Seminole County Clerk of Court.
    No appearance for other Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).

BERGER, EDWARDS, and EISNAUGLE, J.J., concur.


text:
    Theodist T. RICHARDSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    CASE NO. 1D16-5055
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Opinion filed December 18, 2017 Rehearing Denied February 27, 2018
    Theodist T. Richardson, pro se, Petitioner.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Anne Conley, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and WOLF and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.


author: Lewis, J.

text:
    STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Appellant, v. BAYFRONT HMA MEDICAL CENTER, LLC d/b/a Bayfront Health-St. Petersburg, and Galencare, Inc. d/b/a Northside Hospital, Appellees.
    Galencare, Inc. d/b/a Northside Hospital, Appellant, v. Bayfront HMA Medical Center, LLC d/b/a Bayfront Health-St. Petersburg, Appellee.
    No. 1D17-2174 No. 1D17-2229
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    January 2, 2018 Rehearing Denied February 21, 2018
    Sarah Young Hodges, Chief Appellate Counsel, Florida Department of Health, Tallahassee; William Dean Hall III, Jones Walker, LLP, Tallahassee, for State of Florida, Department of Health.
    Raoul G. Cantero, David P. Draigh, and Ryan A. Ulloa, White & Case LLP, Miami; Stephen A. Ecenia, J. Stephen Menton, and Gabriel F.V. Warren, Rutledge Ecenia, Tallahassee; Thomas E. Warner, Dean A. Morande, and Michael D. Sloan, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Galencare, Inc. d/b/a Northside Hospital.
    Geoffrey D. Smith and Timothy B. Elliott, Smith & Associates, Tallahassee, for Appellee, Bayfront HMA Medical Center, LLC d/b/a Bayfront Health-St. Petersburg.
   Lewis, J.

In these consolidated appeals, Appellants, the Department of Health (Department) and Galencare, Inc. d/b/a Northside Hospital (Northside), appeal a non-final order enjoining Northside from operating a provisional trauma center and enjoining the Department from allowing Northside to operate one prior to the conclusion of any timely-filed administrative proceeding challenging any preliminary approval of Northside's application and any judicial review. Appellants raise two issues on appeal, only one of which merits discussion. Appellants argue, and we agree, that the trial court erred by granting the motion for temporary injunction filed by Appellee, Bayfront HMA Medical Center, LLC d/b/a Bayfront Health-St. Petersburg (Bayfront), because Bayfront failed to prove its entitlement to temporary injunctive relief. Therefore, we reverse and remand.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Bayfront operates a level II trauma center in Trauma Service Area ("TSA") 9. On September 30, 2016, Northside submitted to the Department a letter of intent ("LOI") to apply for approval to operate a new trauma center in TSA 9. On October 14, 2016, the Department accepted Northside's LOI and responded with instructions on how to submit a trauma center application by the April 3, 2017, deadline.

On March 10, 2017, Bayfront filed against Appellants a Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, arguing that the Department lacks colorable authority to (1) accept a LOI and application from Northside because TSA 9 currently does not have a trauma center position available given that Florida Administrative Code Rule 64J-2.010 provides for two positions in that TSA and both are filled and (2) allow a provisional trauma center to operate during the pendency of an administrative challenge to the provisional approval of the application. In Count 1, Bayfront asked that the Department be enjoined from accepting and processing Northside's LOI and application and from allowing Northside to begin provisionally operating prior to the conclusion of any timely-filed administrative proceeding challenging any preliminary approval, and also asked that Northside be enjoined from operating as a provisional trauma center in TSA 9 until the conclusion of any administrative challenge. In Count 2, Bayfront sought a declaratory judgement.

On March 24, 2017, Bayfront filed a Motion for Temporary Injunction, seeking to enjoin the Department from permitting Northside to begin operating as a provisional trauma center, and seeking to enjoin Northside from operating as a provisional trauma center, prior to the conclusion of all timely-filed administrative challenges. On or around March 31, 2017, Northside submitted to the Department an application to operate a trauma center in TSA 9. The parties stipulated that the Department would permit Northside to begin operating on May 1, 2017, if its application met the programmatic requirements upon the Department's review.

At the April 5, 2017, evidentiary hearing on Bayfront's motion, Kathryn Gillette, the market president and CEO of Bayfront, testified that Bayfront tracks the zip codes of its patients and conservatively estimates, after having made some assumptions, that it would lose 905 of its 2,725 patients and $4.5 million annually if Northside's trauma center were to open. Gillette was aware of only one emergency room nurse leaving Bayfront for Northside and was not aware of any physicians leaving. Gillette further testified that despite two trauma centers opening in the vicinity, Bayfront has maintained a quality program and sufficient patient volume. Gillette agreed that the Department's action of receiving and reviewing Northside's application does not pose any harm and there is no adverse impact until the Department approves the application.

Dr. Steven Epstein, a trauma surgeon and the trauma medical director at Bayfront, testified that he believes if Northside opened a trauma center, Bayfront would lose half or more of its patients and there would be nothing to do to regain its patient volume, which in turn would have a financial impact on Bayfront and would endanger the trauma staff's skills. When Bayfront sought to prevent Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point, the other trauma center serving TSA 9, from being approved, Epstein was of the view in those legal proceedings that Bayonet's opening would have the same kind of impact he now believes Northside's opening will have. Epstein testified that Bayfront continues to provide high quality care that was not diminished by the opening of the two trauma centers in the vicinity, but opined that the opening of those trauma centers is not comparable to Northside because they are located farther away. Epstein added that even those openings resulted in a loss of patients to Bayfront, but Bayfront was able to recover its patient volume after working with EMS to revise the transport protocols. Epstein further testified that "nobody will be leaving Bayfront to go to Northside" because employees are bound by non-compete clauses and do not wish to leave, although trauma surgeons expressed a potential desire to leave if they cannot maintain their skills.

Cindy Dick testified on the Department's behalf that according to the Department's 2016 assessment of the statewide trauma system, 36.35% of severely injured patients in TSA 9 did not receive care in a trauma center. Dick explained that the Department may review and provisionally grant an application irrespective of the availability of a trauma center slot in the TSA and the Department is not authorized to refuse to process Northside's application or to prevent Northside from beginning provisional operation on May 1st if its application is found acceptable. During litigations over the years, there has been much discussion about the quality of care declining at existing trauma centers as a result of new trauma centers opening nearby, but the Department has not received any evidence indicating that to be the case; to the contrary, experts have testified that their quality of care did not diminish upon the opening of new trauma centers in their area.

Peter Kennedy, the chief operating officer at Northside, testified that in order to comply with the Department's application requirements, Northside hired trauma staff, acquired proper equipment, renovated its emergency room, and implemented over 200 protocols and thousands of training hours; in doing so, it incurred about $4 million in start-up costs. Kennedy testified that none of Northside's thirty-two-plus non-physician and five or six physician hirees were Bayfront employees.

Dr. Erik Barquist, a trauma surgeon and the interim trauma medical director at Northside, testified that Northside has hired the requisite trauma surgeons, and the literature does not indicate what happens to a trauma center's quality of care when its patient volume decreases due to a new competitor. Barquist opined that Bayfront presented the worst case scenario in estimating its losses and given its standing and experience in the community, it will find a way to work with EMS to mitigate the decrease in its patient volume. In every Florida case that Barquist was aware of, existing trauma centers were concerned about and challenged new trauma centers, yet continued to operate, and he was not aware of there being a diminution in quality at any existing trauma center.

In April 2017, the trial court entered an Order Enjoining Appellants, wherein it ordered that pending further order of the court, Northside is prohibited from operating a provisional trauma center in TSA 9, and pending further order of the court and the opening of a trauma center slot in TSA 9, the Department is enjoined from permitting Northside to operate a provisional trauma center until the completion of the administrative proceedings relating to Northside's application and any judicial review. The trial court found in part that the evidence and controlling law provide a substantial certainty that Bayfront will prevail on the merits of its claim because the Department planned to require Northside to begin the provisional operation of a trauma center on May 1, 2017, even though the law precludes provisional licensees from beginning to provide trauma services if there is not an open slot in the TSA and even though there was no final agency action. The trial court further found that Bayfront established that it will be irreparably harmed by Northside's immediate trauma operations on May 1st upon the approval of its application and that those irreparable harms include economic harm due to the dilution of trauma patients, increased difficulty in hiring qualified trauma staff due to competition, increased difficulty in maintaining qualified trauma staff due to the decrease in trauma patient volume, and decreased quality of trauma care.

By letter dated May 1, 2017, the Department informed Northside that it had completed the provisional review of its application and denied the application upon determining it did not meet the standards of critical elements for provisional status. These appeals followed.

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK AND THE TRAUMA CENTER APPLICATION PROCESS

We begin with a brief overview of the statutory and regulatory framework governing trauma centers. The Florida Legislature has found it necessary to establish an inclusive trauma system "designed to meet the needs of all injured trauma victims who require care in an acute-care setting." § 395.40(2), Fla. Stat. (2016). To that end, the Legislature "place[s] primary responsibility for the planning and establishment of a statewide inclusive trauma system with the department" and requires the Department to update the state's trauma system plan at least annually. § 395.40(3) - (6), Fla. Stat.; see also § 395.402(3), Fla. Stat. (2016) (directing the Department to consider various factors in its annual review of the trauma system, including "[t]he geographical composition of an area to ensure rapid access to trauma care by patients," "[p]opulation growth characteristics," and "[t]he actual number of trauma victims currently being served by each trauma center"). The Legislature has established nineteen TSAs, with TSA 9 consisting of Pasco and Pinellas Counties, and has provided that each TSA should have at least one Level I or Level II trauma center, "[t]he department shall allocate, by rule, the number of trauma centers needed for each trauma service area," and "[t]here shall be no more than a total of 44 trauma centers in the state." § 395.402(4), Fla. Stat. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64J-2.010 sets forth the criteria to be used in allocating trauma centers among the TSAs and allocates two trauma centers for TSA 9.

Section 395.4025, Florida Statutes (2016), governs the trauma center application and selection process. First, the Department "shall annually notify each acute care general hospital ... that the department is accepting letters of intent from hospitals that are interested in becoming trauma centers." § 395.4025(2)(a), Fla. Stat. Letters of intent must be postmarked by midnight October 1. Id. "By October 15, the department shall send to all hospitals that submitted a letter of intent an application package that will provide the hospitals with instructions for submitting information to the department for selection as a trauma center." § 395.4025(2)(b), Fla. Stat. "In order to be considered by the department, applications ... must be received by the department no later than the close of business on April 1." § 395.4025(2)(c), Fla. Stat. Then, the Department "shall conduct a provisional review of each application for the purpose of determining that the hospital's application is complete and that the hospital has the critical elements required for a trauma center." Id. "After April 30, any hospital that submitted an application found acceptable by the department based on provisional review shall be eligible to operate as a provisional trauma center." § 395.4025(3), Fla. Stat.

After a hospital is approved as a provisional trauma center, "[b]etween May 1 and October 1, the department shall conduct an in-depth evaluation of all applications found acceptable in the provisional review." § 395.4025(4), Fla. Stat. Finally, based on the recommendations from a review team, the Department shall select verified trauma centers by July 1 of the second year following the filing of the letter of intent. § 395.4025(6), Fla. Stat. If the number of qualified provisional trauma centers exceeds the number of available slots for verified trauma centers in the applicable TSA, the Department must apply the tiebreaking process set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64J-2.016(11) to make the final selection(s). Upon final verification, a trauma center is granted approval to operate for seven years, provided it continues to maintain trauma center standards and acceptable patient outcomes, and may thereafter apply for renewal. § 395.4025(6), Fla. Stat.

ANALYSIS

The standard of review of a trial court's order on a request for temporary injunction is hybrid: the court's factual findings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, whereas its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State , 210 So.3d 1243, 1258 (Fla. 2017). An issue involving statutory interpretation is also reviewed de novo , and an agency's interpretation of a statute it is charged with administering is generally entitled to greater deference and will be upheld unless clearly erroneous. Dep't of Revenue v. Graczyk , 206 So.3d 157, 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

"The polestar of a statutory construction analysis is legislative intent." W. Fla. Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. See , 79 So.3d 1, 8 (Fla. 2012). To discern legislative intent, the court must first look to the plain and obvious meaning of the statute's text, which may be discerned from a dictionary. Id. at 9. If the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the court must apply that unequivocal meaning and may not resort to the rules of statutory construction. Id. "Further, courts are 'without power to construe an unambiguous statute in a way which would extend, modify, or limit, its express terms or its reasonable and obvious implications. To do so would be an abrogation of legislative power.' " Bennett v. St. Vincent's Med. Ctr., Inc. , 71 So.3d 828, 838 (Fla. 2011) (citation omitted). "All parts of the statute must be given effect, and the Court should avoid a reading of the statute that renders any part meaningless. Moreover, 'all parts of a statute must be read together in order to achieve a consistent whole.' " Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley v. State , 209 So.3d 1181, 1189 (Fla. 2017) (citations omitted).

"[T]he purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo while final injunctive relief is sought." Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando, Inc. v. MMB Props. , 211 So.3d 918, 924 (Fla. 2017). A temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly. Sch. Bd. of Hernando Cty. v. Rhea , 213 So.3d 1032, 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). To obtain a temporary injunction, the movant must establish (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a lack of an adequate remedy at law, (3) the likelihood of irreparable harm absent the entry of an injunction, and (4) that injunctive relief will serve the public interest. Id. ; see also Gainesville Woman Care, LLC , 210 So.3d at 1258.

The movant must prove each element with competent, substantial evidence. SunTrust Banks, Inc. v. Cauthon & McGuigan, PLC , 78 So.3d 709, 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). "Clear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings must support each of the four conclusions necessary to justify entry of a preliminary injunction." City of Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Advert. Co. , 634 So.2d 750, 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). If the party seeking the temporary injunction fails to prove one of the requirements, the motion for injunction must be denied. Genchi v. Lower Fla. Keys Hosp. Dist. , 45 So.3d 915, 919 (Fla 3d DCA 2010). Here, for the reasons that follow, Bayfront failed to prove with competent, substantial evidence the substantial likelihood of success on the merits and likelihood of irreparable harm elements required for an injunction. As such, we need not decide whether Bayfront proved the remaining requirements for entry of the temporary injunction.

Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Appellants argue in part that the trial court erred by finding that Bayfront established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claim. We agree. "A substantial likelihood of success on the merits is shown if good reasons for anticipating that result are demonstrated. It is not enough that a merely colorable claim is advanced." City of Jacksonville , 634 So.2d at 753, approved sub nom. Naegele Outdoor Advert. Co., Inc. v. City of Jacksonville , 659 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 1995) ; see also Heslop v. Moore , 716 So.2d 276, 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

Bayfront argued, and the trial court ruled, that pursuant to section 395.4025(5), the Department may not accept a LOI or accept, review, and/or provisionally grant a trauma center application when there is no need (i.e. , an open slot) for a trauma center in the TSA. This matter necessitates a brief review of the statutory scheme. Section 395.4025(2) governs the submission of a LOI and application and the ensuing provisional review of the application, and in pertinent part it requires the Department to notify each hospital that it is accepting LOIs, to send an application package to all hospitals that submitted a LOI, and to conduct a provisional review of each timely submitted application to determine whether the application is complete and the hospital has the critical elements required for a trauma center. The provisions of subsection (2) do not confer discretion on the Department and require it to invite and accept a LOI and to accept, provisionally review, and provisionally grant an application without regard to need. Notably, section 395.4025(2)(d) 1. authorizes the Department to grant an extension of time to an applicant if the number of applicants in the TSA is equal to or less than the service area allocation, not if the number of applicants is equal to or less than the number of open slots, which further evinces that the Legislature considers need irrelevant at the provisional review stage of the application process. Section 395.4025(3) provides that after April 30, any hospital whose application has been provisionally approved shall be eligible to operate as a provisional trauma center. Section 395.4025(4) governs the in-depth review of applications.

Section 395.4025(5), Florida Statutes, governs the onsite visit by a review team of out-of-state experts and contains the following provision, which is at the heart of the issue: "In addition, hospitals being considered as provisional trauma centers shall meet all the requirements of a trauma center and shall be located in a trauma service area that has a need for such a trauma center." The trial court and Bayfront focused on the word "provisional" in that sentence in interpreting the statute as prohibiting the Department from processing and approving an application at the provisional review stage when there is not an open trauma center slot in the TSA.

The statutory context indicates that section 395.4025(5) is not intended to make need a criteria at or before the provisional review stage. For one, the provision is found in the subsection that governs the onsite review stage; by then, the applicant is considered and operating as a provisional trauma center and is being considered for licensing as a trauma center-indeed, the provision does not read, "hospitals being considered for provisional trauma center status." Relatedly, the provision requires an applicant to meet all the requirements of a trauma center, in addition to be located in a TSA that has a need, whereas an applicant at the provisional review stage need only have submitted a timely and complete application and have the critical elements required for a trauma center. The Legislature's definition of "provisional trauma center" as "a hospital that has been verified by the department to be in substantial compliance with the requirements in s. 395.4025 and has been approved by the department to operate as a provisional Level I trauma center, Level II trauma center, or pediatric trauma center" supports this interpretation. See § 395.4001(10), Fla. Stat. (2016) (emphasis added). Further, Bayfront's and the trial court's reading of the provision is contrary to the subsections that precede it, which impose specific requirements on applicants and the Department, but do not impose need as one of the prerequisites for submitting, accepting, reviewing, or provisionally granting an application, nor allow need to enter into consideration. See, e.g. , Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley , 209 So.3d at 1189 (explaining that all parts of a statute must be given effect and must be read together to achieve a consistent whole). For all these reasons, section 395.4025 is clear and does not require or permit the Department to consider need until the onsite review stage of the application process.

Florida Administrative Code Rule 64J-2.012(1)(a) does not compel a different conclusion as it requires the Department to accept a timely LOI and simply adds that the LOI is non-binding, but preserves the hospital's right to complete an application if a trauma center position is available in the TSA. While the phrasing of the rule may seem to support Bayfront's position, it does not state that a hospital may submit-or, more importantly, that the Department may accept, review, or provisionally grant-an application only if there is an available position, which is how the trial court interpreted it. Indeed, rule 64J-2.012(1)(b) requires the Department to send an application package to hospitals that submitted a LOI, and nothing in rule 64J-2.012 requires or allows the Department to consider need at or before the provisional review stage. The tiebreaking procedure found in rule 64J-2.016(11) further supports this interpretation given that it reflects that the number of provisional trauma centers eligible for selection at the end of the application process may exceed the number of trauma centers allocated by rule 64J-2.010(3). As such, Bayfront failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claim relating to need.

Bayfront also argued, and the trial court found, that Northside cannot begin operations as a provisional trauma center until the conclusion of all administrative proceedings. Section 395.4025 provides that "[a]fter April 30, any hospital that submitted an application found acceptable by the department based on provisional review shall be eligible to operate as a provisional trauma center." § 395.4025(3), Fla. Stat.; see also Fla. Admin. Code R. 64J-2.012(1)(g)1. (providing that the Department shall notify each hospital that passed the provisional review process that "the hospital shall operate as a Provisional trauma center beginning May 1"). Section 395.4025(7), Florida Statutes, provides that "[a]ny hospital that wishes to protest a decision made by the department based on the department's preliminary or in-depth review of applications or on the recommendations of the site visit review team pursuant to this section shall proceed as provided in chapter 120," but it does not state what effect an administrative challenge has on a provisional trauma center beginning operation. The parties cited and we found no statute, rule, or appellate decision directly on point. Section 395.4025 sets forth a definite timeline for the trauma center application process and requires a hospital to establish a trauma center prior to submitting an application. It is unclear how a stay on a provisional trauma center's operations would affect the statutory timeline and it would likely endanger the viability of the provisional trauma center because it would be forced to sit idly while any administrative proceeding concludes. Additionally, the cases before us are unique in that the Department had not even received Northside's application at the time of the filing of Bayfront's complaint and motion for temporary injunction and ultimately denied the application at the provisional review stage. As such, we find that Bayfront's assertion that Northside cannot begin operations as a provisional trauma center until the conclusion of all administrative proceedings is at most a merely colorable claim. Therefore, Bayfront failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claim and the trial court erred by finding otherwise.

Irreparable Harm

Appellants also argue that the trial court erred by finding that Bayfront established that without temporary injunctive relief, it would be irreparably harmed by the provisional approval of Northside's application and Northside's immediate trauma operations on May 1st. We agree.

"Irreparable injury will never be found where the injury complained of is 'doubtful, eventual or contingent.' " Jacksonville Elec. Auth. v. Beemik Builders & Constructors, Inc. , 487 So.2d 372, 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (citation omitted); see also Biscayne Park, LLC v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP , 34 So.3d 24, 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) ("Wal-Mart's alleged injury was its possible monetary liability resulting from possible future contamination to groundwater through the wells. '[T]his court has previously held that the granting of injunctive relief is improper when a plaintiff's right to recover is based upon a future event,' [citation omitted]; in this case, the future event is the possible future contamination of the groundwater through the wells. Because the alleged injury is speculative, we conclude that it is insufficient to meet the irreparable injury standard.").

In addition, money damages and loss of business to a competitor generally will not suffice to demonstrate irreparable injury. Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Cont'l Car Servs., Inc. , 650 So.2d 173, 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) ; see also Stand Up for Animals, Inc. v. Monroe Cty. , 69 So.3d 1011, 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (explaining that irreparable harm is not established where the harm can be compensated for adequately by money damages and that a judgment for money damages is adequate even where the party alleges that the opposing party may dissipate assets and a money judgment might be uncollectable). However, "evidence of the potential destruction of a business, without a track record from which to calculate the potential loss and with harm of a continuing nature, may in some cases provide sufficient indicia of irreparable harm to support temporary injunctive relief." U.S. 1 Office Corp. v. Falls Home Furnishings, Inc. , 655 So.2d 209, 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (affirming the order granting the appellee's motion for temporary injunction because the record supported the conclusions that the appellee faced the destruction of its business, it would be difficult to find a basis from which to calculate damages given the absence of a track record, and the harm was ongoing) (citations omitted).

Here, the trial court found that the irreparable harms to Bayfront, once Northside begins operating as a trauma center prior to the conclusion of any administrative challenge, are economic harm due to the dilution of trauma patients, increased difficulty in hiring qualified trauma staff due to competition, increased difficulty in maintaining qualified trauma staff due to the decreased volume of trauma patients, and decreased quality of trauma care due to the dilution of trauma patients. We conclude that the trial court's finding of irreparable harm is erroneous for a number of reasons. First, all the harms were contingent on the future event of the Department provisionally approving Northside's application. In fact, Gillette conceded that the Department's action of receiving and reviewing Northside's application does not pose any harm and there is no adverse impact until the application is approved, and the Department ultimately denied Northside's application. Accordingly, the alleged harms cannot constitute irreparable injury.

Second, case law is clear that economic harm does not constitute irreparable injury; that is, loss of business and money damages due to a decrease in patient volume do not suffice to demonstrate irreparable injury. To the extent the trial court relied on the exception recited in U.S. 1 Office Corp. , that exception is inapplicable because it is undisputed that there was no evidence of the potential destruction of Bayfront's business and Bayfront has a track record from which to calculate losses.

As for the remaining harms of increased difficulty in hiring and maintaining qualified trauma staff and decreased quality of trauma care, the trial court's findings are not supported by competent, substantial evidence. The evidence established that Bayfront made some assumptions in estimating that it would lose 905 of its 2,725 patients, non-compete clauses prevented Bayfront's trauma surgeons from going to work for Northside, the trauma positions at Northside were already filled, and Bayfront was able to maintain its patient volume and quality of care after two new trauma centers opened in its vicinity. The Department's representative testified that 36.35% of severely injured patients in TSA 9 do not receive care in a trauma center and that despite much discussion over the years about the quality of care declining at existing trauma centers as a result of new trauma centers opening nearby, the Department has not received any evidence indicating such and experts have testified that the quality of care did not diminish. Barquist similarly testified that the literature does not indicate what happens to a trauma center's quality of care when its patient volume decreases due to a new competitor and that every existing trauma center has continued to operate after unsuccessfully challenging provisional trauma centers. For these reasons, the trial court erred by finding that Bayfront established irreparable harm absent an injunction.

Based on the foregoing, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

Makar and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.


author: EGAN, R., Associate Judge,

text:
    Lars Paul GUSTAVSSON, Appellant, v. Carol Marie HOLDER and Sean Leonard Beck, Appellees.
    Case No. 5D16-1442
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Opinion filed January 5, 2018
    Nancye R. Jones and Mark A. Matovina, of Politis & Matovina, P.A., Port Orange, for Appellant.
    Elizabeth C. Wheeler, of Elizabeth C Wheeler, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees.
   EGAN, R., Associate Judge,

Lars Paul Gustavsson appeals the denial of his motion for additur or new trial following judgment entered in his favor, as well as the denial of his subsequent motion for reconsideration. Gustavsson also argues the trial court abused its discretion by declining to grant a new trial on damages and liability based on a compromised verdict. We reverse on the issue of past non-economic damages only and affirm on the issue of future non-economic damages. We also affirm on the issue of liability based on a compromised verdict because Gustavsson did not preserve that issue for appeal.

Gustavsson sued appellees Carol Marie Holder and Sean Leonard Beck after being struck and injured as a pedestrian by a vehicle owned by Holder and driven by Beck. With respect to damages, the parties did not dispute that Gustavsson sustained a serious and permanent injury as a result of the accident. He sustained a displaced right femur fracture that required surgical repair with a titanium rod. He also suffered a facial laceration, which required plastic surgery that resulted in permanent facial scarring. Recovery from the leg injury did not go well. Over the three years following the accident, Gustavsson was diagnosed with three MRSA infections of the leg that required at least four additional surgical procedures, including irrigation and debridement of the infected tissue and removal of the titanium rod, which was believed to be the source of the infection. During this time, Gustavsson spent more than eighteen weeks in the hospital, and at trial, he claimed $507,874.95 in past medical expenses.

All of his treating physicians agreed that the subject motor vehicle accident was the cause of the infection and that the initial injury, as well as the subsequent infections, were very painful for Gustavsson. In addition, orthopedic surgeon Thomas Broderick, M.D., performed three compulsory medical examinations on behalf of Beck, culminating in a final written report in January 2015. According to Dr. Broderick, Gustavsson's right knee had stabilized by that time but had a permanent decrease in motion. The right thigh had suffered significant atrophy, and the knee examination was consistent with chronic inflammation. Dr. Broderick agreed that the leg injury would have been painful, opined that Gustavsson sustained a permanent injury, and assigned a 25% permanent impairment rating related to the accident.

At the close of the evidence, the trial court directed a verdict for Gustavsson on the issue of permanency and submitted the case to the jury. The jury returned a verdict finding Beck 1% negligent and Gustavsson 99% negligent. The jury awarded Gustavsson $507,667.95 for medical damages, nearly the exact total of the claimed past medical bills, but awarded no damages for pain and suffering, physical impairment, mental anguish, inconvenience, aggravation of disease or physical defect, or loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life.

In light of the directed verdict on permanency and the award of past medical damages, the parties agreed the jury verdict was inconsistent, and the court sent the jury back for further deliberation with the following instruction:

I have found your verdict to be an inconsistent one.
Because of the Court's finding of permanent injury and the award that you all determined was appropriate of past medical expenses, there must be an accompanying award of pain and suffering in Paragraph 5 of the verdict form.
So I am sending you back to deliberate in that regard, looking at Paragraph 5, and your determination in that regard must be based on the evidence that you have heard.

Eleven minutes later, the jury returned the same verdict for medical damages and added only $1000 for past non-economic damages and $1000 for future non-economic damages.

After trial, Gustavsson moved for additur or, in the alternative, new trial. He specifically argued "the amount of the award is inadequate as a matter of law in that":

(a) The jury found that Defendant's negligence was the legal cause of injury and or loss to Plaintiff. However, the jury failed to award the damages for any future medical expenses based on the manifest weight of the evidence;
(b) The jury found that Defendant's negligence was the legal cause of injury or loss to Plaintiff, however the jury award for past pain and suffering damages was inadequate based on the manifest weight of the evidence;
(c) The jury found that Defendant's negligence was the legal cause of injury and or loss to Plaintiff, however the jury award for future pain and suffering damages was inadequate based on the manifest weight of the evidence;
(d) The jury misconceived the merits of the case relating to the amount of damages recoverable.

Gustavsson made no mention of a request for new trial based on the issue of liability due to a compromised verdict.

The trial court denied the motion without a hearing, and Gustavsson then moved for reconsideration on similar grounds, again without reference to a compromised verdict. The trial court allowed a hearing on the motion, where Gustavsson mentioned for the first time the issue of a compromised verdict as follows:

[I]f there was a hotly contested liability issue then you get a new trial on damages and liability. And there's no question this one was hotly contested. In fact, my opinion is, that this was a compromised verdict because of the 99 to 1 percent, somebody was holding out, and they compromised the one percent.

The trial court denied reconsideration.

We find that Gustavsson did not preserve the issue of new trial on liability based on a compromised verdict because the initial denial of the motion was jurisdictional and not subject to reconsideration or modification. See State v. Burton, 314 So.2d 136, 137 (Fla. 1975) (approving the district court's correct legal conclusion that "when a motion for new trial is granted or denied 'absent fraud or clerical error ' ... 'the court is without authority to entertain or consider a petition for re-hearing addressed to such an order' "); Owens v. Jackson, 476 So.2d 264, 264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Specifically, an order granting or denying a new trial confers a substantive right and is not interlocutory in nature. Burton, 314 So.2d at 137 ; Owens, 476 So.2d at 264. Accordingly, unlike an interlocutory order, it is not subject to modification. Huffman v. Little, 341 So.2d 268, 269 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977).

With respect to the issue of additur or new trial based on inadequate non-economic damages awarded in a motor vehicle accident case, section 768.043, Florida Statutes (2015), provides that courts "shall consider" the following factors for "determining whether an award is clearly excessive or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances presented to the trier of fact and in determining the amount, if any, that such award exceeds a reasonable range of damages or is inadequate":

(a) Whether the amount awarded is indicative of prejudice, passion, or corruption on the part of the trier of fact.
(b) Whether it clearly appears that the trier of fact ignored the evidence in reaching the verdict or misconceived the merits of the case relating to the amounts of damages recoverable.
(c) Whether the trier of fact took improper elements of damages into account or arrived at the amount of damages by speculation or conjecture.
(d) Whether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered.
(e) Whether the amount awarded is supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons.

Here, considering these factors, we conclude that the trial court erred by not granting additur or a new trial on the issue of past non-economic damages. The jury initially awarded no non-economic damages despite: (1) the unanimous opinion of all physicians involved that Gustavsson sustained a serious and painful injury that resulted in numerous MRSA infections requiring more than four months of hospitalization; (2) being instructed that Gustavsson had sustained a permanent injury as a matter of law; and (3) awarding over half a million dollars in past medical expenses. After the trial court instructed the jury to award damages for pain and suffering, it deliberated for only eleven more minutes before awarding $1000 for past non-economic damages and $1000 for future non-economic damages. Under the facts of this case, the award for past non-economic damages was inadequate as a matter of law and subject to additur or a new trial.

This case is similar to Sanchez v. Hernandez, 971 So.2d 944, 945-46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007), in which the defendant's vehicle struck the plaintiff as he crossed a road, resulting in multiple surgeries to the left knee, recurring pain, and a 15 to 20% permanent disability. The jury awarded past medical expenses of $55,402.43, future medical expenses of $16,000, and past wage loss of $5000, but only $702.21 for past non-economic damages and the same amount for future non-economic damages. Id. at 946. The Third District Court of Appeal held, "Unlike the disparity between past and future components of damages considered in [ Allstate Insurance Co. v. Manasse, 707 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 1998) ], and other cases cited by the defendants, the jury's awards to Sanchez for non-economic damages simply have no explanation in the record." Id.

Here, the evidence of past non-economic damages was both overwhelming and undisputed. Under the facts of this case, the jury's verdict on such damages has no explanation in the record, and it is apparent that the trier of fact ignored the evidence in reaching the verdict or misconceived the merits of the case relating to the amount of past non-economic damages recoverable. Likewise, the amount of past non-economic damages awarded bears no reasonable relation to the substantial amount of economic damages proved and the injury suffered.

Accordingly, we reverse the denial of the motion for additur and remand for either an additur award or a new trial on past non-economic damages only in accordance with section 768.043, Florida Statutes.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

COHEN, C.J. and EISNAUGLE, J., concur.

      Carol Marie Holder, Beck's mother, does not participate on appeal.

      We do not disturb the jury's verdict or the trial court's ruling regarding future economic or non-economic damages because future damages are, by nature, less certain than past damages. See Manasse, 707 So.2d at 1111. In this case, the jury made no award for future medical expenses, and Gustavsson testified the pain had improved and there were periods in between surgeries where he indicated no pain.


author: Per Curiam.

text:
    Rashawn CLARK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D17-680
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    January 10, 2018
    Rashawn Clark, Arcadia, pro se.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

Rashawn Clark appeals an order summarily denying as untimely a Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. The record does not conclusively refute his claim that the newly discovered fact exception applies. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b)(1). We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of portions of the record conclusively showing appellant is not entitled to relief.

In April 2009, Clark entered a plea to armed robbery. The offer he accepted provided for a 20-year cap on the prison sentence. The court sentenced him to 20 years in prison followed by 10 years of probation. This Court affirmed on direct appeal without a published opinion, on September 13, 2010. Clark v. State , 41 So.3d 229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (table). Clark filed a timely Rule 3.850 motion that was denied after evidentiary hearing and affirmed on appeal. Clark v. State , 138 So.3d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (table).

In December 2016, Clark filed the present Rule 3.850 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on "newly discovered evidence." See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b)(1) (providing an exception to the two-year time limit where "the facts on which the claim is predicated were unknown to the movant or the movant's attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence"). He claimed that trial counsel failed to convey a plea offer of 15 years in prison with 5 years of probation. The plea offer was dated February 26, 2009, and Clark alleged that he did not discover the offer until August 2016.

The trial court summarily denied the motion as untimely, stating that the plea offer was not newly discovered evidence because Clark's counsel was aware of the offer. We disagree. In these circumstances, trial counsel's knowledge of the plea offer is not imputed to Clark for purposes of the newly discovered fact exception of Rule 3.850(b)(1). See Petit-Homme v. State , 205 So.3d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (reversing a similar newly discovered plea offer claim and remanding for further proceedings where the record did not conclusively establish that defendant could have learned of the offer within the two-year time limit). Clark's motion stated a facially sufficient exception to the time limit. He alleged that he was previously unaware of the offer because counsel did not convey it and that he could not have learned of the offer with due diligence within the two-year time limit. The trial court failed to attach records conclusively showing that the exception did not apply.

We express no opinion on the merits of Clark's allegations or whether he could have learned of the offer with due diligence. The record simply fails to conclusively refute the claim, so reversal is required. Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D) ("On appeal from the denial of relief, unless the record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief, the order shall be reversed and the cause remanded for an evidentiary hearing or other appropriate relief.").

Trial counsel's failure to convey a favorable plea offer can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. See, e.g. , Jacques v. State , 193 So.3d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Clark's motion satisfied the elements of Alcorn v. State , 121 So.3d 419 (Fla. 2013). He alleged that he would have accepted the plea offer and his sentence would have been less severe than the 20-year prison sentence he ultimately received. Nothing in the present record suggests that the prosecutor would have withdrawn the offer or that the trial court would have rejected it. See Jacques , 193 So.3d at 1065.

In response to this Court's order to show cause, the State argues that Clark should have learned of the plea offer in December 2012, when he received the record on appeal for his previous Rule 3.850 motion. The State references a note on the progress docket showing a plea offer was open until March 31, 2009. However, as argued by Clark in his reply, this does not conclusively refute his claim because the note could refer to a different plea offer, such as the one Clark ultimately accepted.

Accordingly, the record does not refute Clark's allegations that defense counsel failed to convey a more favorable plea offer and that Clark could not have learned of the offer within the two-year time limit. We reverse and remand for either an evidentiary hearing or attachment of portions of the record that conclusively show that Clark is not entitled to relief.

Reversed and remanded.

Gerber, C.J., May and Levine, JJ., Concur.

      Clark alleged that he first learned of the offer through his brother, a co-defendant, after the brother obtained postconviction relief based on trial counsel's failure to convey the offer.