| Docket Date |
2021-08-13
|
| Type |
Disposition
|
| Subtype |
Denied
|
| Description |
Denied - Order by Judge
|
|
| Docket Date |
2021-08-13
|
| Type |
Order
|
| Subtype |
Order on Motion For Attorney's Fees
|
| Description |
Deny Attorney's Fees ~ ORDERED that petitioners’ June 11, 2021 motion for attorney's fees is denied.
|
|
| Docket Date |
2021-06-29
|
| Type |
Response
|
| Subtype |
Reply
|
| Description |
Reply
|
| On Behalf Of |
Steven Fassberg
|
|
| Docket Date |
2021-06-21
|
| Type |
Order
|
| Subtype |
Order on Motion To Strike
|
| Description |
Deny Motion to Strike ~ ORDERED that respondents’ June 15, 2021 motion to strike is denied. The respondents’ motion for leave to file a sur-reply is granted. The respondents shall file a sur-reply of no more than four pages directed solely to the petitioners’ irreparable harm argument at pages 5-7 of the petitioners’ reply. The sur-reply shall be filed within ten (10) days from the date of this order.
|
|
| Docket Date |
2021-06-15
|
| Type |
Motions Other
|
| Subtype |
Motion To Strike
|
| Description |
Motion To Strike
|
| On Behalf Of |
Steven Fassberg
|
|
| Docket Date |
2021-06-11
|
| Type |
Response
|
| Subtype |
Reply to Response
|
| Description |
Reply to Response
|
| On Behalf Of |
John Preston
|
|
| Docket Date |
2021-06-11
|
| Type |
Motions Relating to Attorney Fees/Costs
|
| Subtype |
Motion For Attorney's Fees
|
| Description |
Motion For Attorney's Fees
|
| On Behalf Of |
John Preston
|
|
| Docket Date |
2021-06-01
|
| Type |
Response
|
| Subtype |
Response
|
| Description |
Response
|
| On Behalf Of |
Steven Fassberg
|
|
| Docket Date |
2021-05-12
|
| Type |
Order
|
| Subtype |
Show Cause re Petition
|
| Description |
ORD-Writs Show Cause with Reply ~ ORDERED that respondents shall file a response within twenty (20) days and show cause why the petition should not be granted. Petitioners may file a reply within ten (10) days of service of the response.
|
|
| Docket Date |
2021-03-16
|
| Type |
Record
|
| Subtype |
Appendix to Petition
|
| Description |
Appendix to Petition
|
| On Behalf Of |
John Preston
|
|
| Docket Date |
2021-03-09
|
| Type |
Order
|
| Subtype |
Order to File (Supplemental) Appendix
|
| Description |
Order Requiring Supplemental Appendix ~ ORDERED that, within ten (10) days of service of this order, petitioners shall file a supplemental appendix containing petitioners’ motion to dismiss and the hearing transcripts on petitioners’ motion to dismiss leading to the order under review. Failure to provide an adequate record may result in denial of the petition. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 2013).
|
|
| Docket Date |
2021-02-25
|
| Type |
Record
|
| Subtype |
Appendix to Response
|
| Description |
Appendix to Response
|
| On Behalf Of |
Steven Fassberg
|
|
| Docket Date |
2021-02-25
|
| Type |
Order
|
| Subtype |
Order Striking Filing
|
| Description |
Order Striking Appendix - Non-Compliance With R. 9.220 ~ ORDERED that respondent's appendix to the response is stricken as not in compliance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.220(c), which was amended effective October 1, 2017, in that it contains bookmarks which are not in compliance with Rule 9.220(c)(3). An amended appendix in compliance with Rule 9.220(c) shall be filed within two (2) days from the date of this order.
|
|
| Docket Date |
2021-02-24
|
| Type |
Response
|
| Subtype |
Response
|
| Description |
Response ~ "OBJECTION"
|
| On Behalf Of |
Steven Fassberg
|
|
| Docket Date |
2021-02-24
|
| Type |
Record
|
| Subtype |
Appendix to Response
|
| Description |
Appendix to Response ~ ***STRICKEN 2/25/21***
|
| On Behalf Of |
Steven Fassberg
|
|
| Docket Date |
2021-02-22
|
| Type |
Order
|
| Subtype |
Order Striking Filing
|
| Description |
Order Striking Appendix - Non-Compliance With R. 9.220 ~ ORDERED that petitioner's appendix to the petition for writ of certiorari is stricken as not in compliance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.220(c), which was amended effective October 1, 2017, in that it contains bookmarks which are not in compliance with Rule 9.220(c)(3). An amended appendix in compliance with Rule 9.220(c) shall be filed within two (2) days from the date of this order.
|
|
| Docket Date |
2021-02-22
|
| Type |
Letter
|
| Subtype |
Acknowledgment Letter
|
| Description |
Writ of Certiorari / Acknowledgment letter
|
|
| Docket Date |
2021-02-22
|
| Type |
Record
|
| Subtype |
Appendix to Petition
|
| Description |
Appendix to Petition
|
| On Behalf Of |
John Preston
|
|
| Docket Date |
2021-02-19
|
| Type |
Misc. Events
|
| Subtype |
Fee Status
|
| Description |
FP:Fee Paid Through Portal
|
|
| Docket Date |
2021-02-19
|
| Type |
Record
|
| Subtype |
Appendix to Petition
|
| Description |
Appendix to Petition ~ **STRICKEN***FILING FEE PAID ELECTRONICALLY*
|
|
| Docket Date |
2021-02-19
|
| Type |
Petition
|
| Subtype |
Petition Certiorari
|
| Description |
Petition for Certiorari Filed ~ *FILING FEE PAID ELECTRONICALLY*
|
| On Behalf Of |
John Preston
|
|
| Docket Date |
2021-08-13
|
| Type |
Disposition by Order
|
| Subtype |
Denied
|
| Description |
Order Denying Petition for Writ - Certiorari ~ ORDERED that the February 19, 2021 petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits. The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in rejecting the investigation conducted pursuant to Fla. Stat. 607.07401(3) as not being reasonable. MAY and LEVINE JJ., concur;WARNER, J., specially concurring. I agree with the denial of the petition on the merits. The court found that the investigator did not consider several material issues in dispute and did not recall questioning witnesses on several key issues. In the evidentiary hearing to determine the reasonableness of the investigatory report, the investigator could not remember asking about certain material issues and facts, while other witnesses testified that they specifically told the investigator about such facts. While the court determined that the investigation was not conducted in a reasonable manner because the investigator did not conduct sworn interviews with witnesses, compel the production of documents, and obtain an independent valuation expert, none of which are required by statute, the court’s conclusion must be understood in connection with the failure to address what the court deemed to be material issues. Given the disparity in the testimony, the court did not depart from the essential requirements of law.
|
|
