SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 4
Download to read offline
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
          FIFTH DISTRICT                       JANUARY TERM 2011




MARIE MARION and
CRAIG TENNANT,

               Appellants,

v.                                                     Case No. 5D06-4243

ORLANDO PAIN & MEDICAL REHABILITATION,
etc., et al.,

               Appellees.

________________________________/

Opinion filed January 12, 2011

Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Seminole County,
Debra S. Nelson, Judge.

Jerry H. Jeffery, Jr., Maitland,
for Appellants.

Donald N. Williams of the Law Office of
Piercy J. Stakelum, P.A., Orlando, for
Appellees.


                              ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

TORPY, J.

       Appellees, Ralph Porto and Brian Burns, move for sanctions based upon an

improper motion for rehearing directed to our per curiam, without opinion, disposition of

this appeal.
This appeal challenged the dismissal of one count of a multi-count complaint.

Suffice it to say that we determined that the trial court correctly dismissed the count, and

that Appellant, Craig Tennant, had been offered ample opportunity to correct the

defective pleading through several amendments. Although the facts of the case were

somewhat novel, the issues of law were not. Our decision to dispose of the case

without opinion was the product of our considered determination that no new or novel

point of law was involved and that no further review would be available even if we were

to write an opinion. In response to our decision, Appellant, through his counsel, filed his

MOTION FOR REHEARING OR CERTIFICATION TO THE SUPREME COURT. The

first two paragraphs in the motion state as follows:

       1. Oh.

       2. Please forgive in advance if, through the words of this Motion you can
       hear the author screaming, but I cannot overcome my indignation
       engendered by this Honorable Court's per curiam affirmance of the lower
       court's order. I understand that Motions for Rehearing are seldom granted
       by appellate courts, and for good reason. However, I must believe that if I
       correctly state the facts of this case, the court will retract its opinion and
       reconsider the issue. I assume that I failed in my obligation in the initial
       briefs.

Thereupon, counsel set forth what he labeled as facts.            The statement of facts

contained not a single record reference and many of the facts are unsupported by the

record.   For example, the opening sentence of the statement of “facts” says that

Appellees are “both proven con artists . . . ,” yet the record bears no such proof. Nor

does a scandalous description such as this have any place in a pleading of this nature.

       Appellant’s counsel goes on:

       6. In short, [Appellees] ran a con, using the (now, surprisingly, defunct)
       clinic as a shell. And now the Court seems to be saying this is OK in the


                                             2
Fifth District. If so, I have lived too long. (I am sorry -- I am screaming
       again.)

       In response, Appellees addressed the impropriety of Appellant’s motion in

considerable detail and sought sanctions. Rather than withdraw the frivolous and non-

compliant motion, Appellant pressed on, albeit with a somewhat more conciliatory tone.

Appellant nevertheless delivered a “tit for tat” by demanding that Appellees’ counsel be

caused to appear before the court to “explain in detail” his assertion that Appellant’s

statement of facts was improper.

       We have repeatedly admonished the bar regarding the impropriety of motions

such as this. See Amador v. Walker, 862 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), and cases

cited therein.   Motions for rehearing are not to be used for the purpose of venting

counsel’s frustrations with the form or substance of the court’s decision. Id. They are

rarely, if ever, warranted when the decision is without opinion. See Snell v. State, 522

So. 2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (absent a written opinion, motion for rehearing cannot

direct court to matters overlooked).

       In this motion, not only does counsel violate this admonition, he does so

unabashedly -- by admitting that it was his primary purpose in filing the motion. The

motion itself completely fails to satisfy any of the requisites of a proper motion of this

nature or of any other pleading filed by a professional lawyer for that matter. It fails to

tell us what “fact” we overlooked. It contains assertions that have no support in the

record, are scandalous and are legally irrelevant. The only “facts” that are relevant to

an appeal from the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a cause of action are

those spelled out in the complaint itself. The motion asserts as a conclusion that our

decision conflicts with other precedents but fails to give even a scintilla of analysis as to


                                             3
how our disposition of this case conflicts with any of these precedents. The request for

“certification” neither identifies any question to be certified nor attempts to explain how

any issue in the case could be characterized as one involving great public importance.

In short, it is naked re-argument at best and an emotional tirade at worst, neither of

which have any place in this Court.

       Based upon the apparent violations of numerous rules of court and the rules

governing the conduct of attorneys, counsel for Appellant, Jerry H. Jeffery, is directed to

appear before this Court on February 17, 2011, at 11:30 a.m., to show cause why

monetary or other sanctions should not be imposed pursuant to Florida Rule of

Appellate Procedure 9.410 (a) and (b), and section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2010).

The Court reserves jurisdiction for this and other proper purposes.

       MOTIONS DENIED; SHOW CAUSE ORDER ENTERED.

ORFINGER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.




                                            4

More Related Content

Similar to Marionv orlando

Opinion grossman FL preemptory challenges
Opinion grossman FL preemptory challengesOpinion grossman FL preemptory challenges
Opinion grossman FL preemptory challengesmzamoralaw
 
Good legal verbiage defendants objection on the grounds of relevancy-california
Good legal verbiage defendants objection on the grounds of relevancy-californiaGood legal verbiage defendants objection on the grounds of relevancy-california
Good legal verbiage defendants objection on the grounds of relevancy-californiascreaminc
 
Module # 3 Lecture
Module # 3 LectureModule # 3 Lecture
Module # 3 Lecturegreggmorphew
 
Module # 2 Civil Trial
Module # 2 Civil Trial Module # 2 Civil Trial
Module # 2 Civil Trial greggmorphew
 
012909 answer&counterclaim (stor-all vs newsome)
012909 answer&counterclaim (stor-all vs newsome)012909 answer&counterclaim (stor-all vs newsome)
012909 answer&counterclaim (stor-all vs newsome)VogelDenise
 
Ch 20 Appeals Process
Ch 20 Appeals ProcessCh 20 Appeals Process
Ch 20 Appeals Processrharrisonaz
 
Reply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered Sanctions
Reply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered SanctionsReply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered Sanctions
Reply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered SanctionsRich Bergeron
 
Horsehead Defendants Reply Brief
Horsehead Defendants Reply BriefHorsehead Defendants Reply Brief
Horsehead Defendants Reply BriefGuy Spier
 
Federal Circuit Affirms Inequitable Conduct Judgment for Non-disclosure of Ma...
Federal Circuit Affirms Inequitable Conduct Judgment for Non-disclosure of Ma...Federal Circuit Affirms Inequitable Conduct Judgment for Non-disclosure of Ma...
Federal Circuit Affirms Inequitable Conduct Judgment for Non-disclosure of Ma...Patton Boggs LLP
 
Case review of (2010)7 N.W.L.R (pt. 1192) by Ejeme Ikekhua
Case review of (2010)7 N.W.L.R (pt. 1192) by Ejeme Ikekhua Case review of (2010)7 N.W.L.R (pt. 1192) by Ejeme Ikekhua
Case review of (2010)7 N.W.L.R (pt. 1192) by Ejeme Ikekhua Tope Adebayo LLP
 
State v. Benjamin Percy
State v. Benjamin PercyState v. Benjamin Percy
State v. Benjamin PercyNatch Greyes
 
Attorney General v Allen Chastanet et al - Final
Attorney General v Allen Chastanet et al - FinalAttorney General v Allen Chastanet et al - Final
Attorney General v Allen Chastanet et al - FinalTHINK FORWARD
 
04/01/13 - Response To Return Of 01/04/13 Pleading (STOR-ALL)
04/01/13 - Response To Return Of 01/04/13 Pleading (STOR-ALL)04/01/13 - Response To Return Of 01/04/13 Pleading (STOR-ALL)
04/01/13 - Response To Return Of 01/04/13 Pleading (STOR-ALL)VogelDenise
 

Similar to Marionv orlando (20)

Opinion grossman FL preemptory challenges
Opinion grossman FL preemptory challengesOpinion grossman FL preemptory challenges
Opinion grossman FL preemptory challenges
 
Federal Circuit Review | October 2012
Federal Circuit Review | October 2012Federal Circuit Review | October 2012
Federal Circuit Review | October 2012
 
Good legal verbiage defendants objection on the grounds of relevancy-california
Good legal verbiage defendants objection on the grounds of relevancy-californiaGood legal verbiage defendants objection on the grounds of relevancy-california
Good legal verbiage defendants objection on the grounds of relevancy-california
 
Module # 3 Lecture
Module # 3 LectureModule # 3 Lecture
Module # 3 Lecture
 
Court procedures
Court proceduresCourt procedures
Court procedures
 
Module # 2 Civil Trial
Module # 2 Civil Trial Module # 2 Civil Trial
Module # 2 Civil Trial
 
Carrie Schultz-Loch Project 8-3
Carrie Schultz-Loch Project 8-3Carrie Schultz-Loch Project 8-3
Carrie Schultz-Loch Project 8-3
 
012909 answer&counterclaim (stor-all vs newsome)
012909 answer&counterclaim (stor-all vs newsome)012909 answer&counterclaim (stor-all vs newsome)
012909 answer&counterclaim (stor-all vs newsome)
 
Ch 20 Appeals Process
Ch 20 Appeals ProcessCh 20 Appeals Process
Ch 20 Appeals Process
 
Reply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered Sanctions
Reply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered SanctionsReply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered Sanctions
Reply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered Sanctions
 
Ethics For Florida Probate Lawyers
Ethics For Florida Probate LawyersEthics For Florida Probate Lawyers
Ethics For Florida Probate Lawyers
 
Horsehead Defendants Reply Brief
Horsehead Defendants Reply BriefHorsehead Defendants Reply Brief
Horsehead Defendants Reply Brief
 
Federal Circuit Affirms Inequitable Conduct Judgment for Non-disclosure of Ma...
Federal Circuit Affirms Inequitable Conduct Judgment for Non-disclosure of Ma...Federal Circuit Affirms Inequitable Conduct Judgment for Non-disclosure of Ma...
Federal Circuit Affirms Inequitable Conduct Judgment for Non-disclosure of Ma...
 
Case review of (2010)7 N.W.L.R (pt. 1192) by Ejeme Ikekhua
Case review of (2010)7 N.W.L.R (pt. 1192) by Ejeme Ikekhua Case review of (2010)7 N.W.L.R (pt. 1192) by Ejeme Ikekhua
Case review of (2010)7 N.W.L.R (pt. 1192) by Ejeme Ikekhua
 
State v. Benjamin Percy
State v. Benjamin PercyState v. Benjamin Percy
State v. Benjamin Percy
 
Doc. 131
Doc. 131Doc. 131
Doc. 131
 
Attorney General v Allen Chastanet et al - Final
Attorney General v Allen Chastanet et al - FinalAttorney General v Allen Chastanet et al - Final
Attorney General v Allen Chastanet et al - Final
 
04/01/13 - Response To Return Of 01/04/13 Pleading (STOR-ALL)
04/01/13 - Response To Return Of 01/04/13 Pleading (STOR-ALL)04/01/13 - Response To Return Of 01/04/13 Pleading (STOR-ALL)
04/01/13 - Response To Return Of 01/04/13 Pleading (STOR-ALL)
 
Doc.96
Doc.96Doc.96
Doc.96
 
motion in limine
motion in liminemotion in limine
motion in limine
 

More from mzamoralaw

Wright v marshaw
Wright v marshawWright v marshaw
Wright v marshawmzamoralaw
 
Worley v. YMCA
Worley v. YMCAWorley v. YMCA
Worley v. YMCAmzamoralaw
 
Mdl 2767-initial transfer-03-17 (1)
Mdl 2767-initial transfer-03-17 (1)Mdl 2767-initial transfer-03-17 (1)
Mdl 2767-initial transfer-03-17 (1)mzamoralaw
 
Judge's ruling on seeling bills to 3rd party
Judge's ruling on seeling bills to 3rd partyJudge's ruling on seeling bills to 3rd party
Judge's ruling on seeling bills to 3rd partymzamoralaw
 
VW Clean Diesel PSC appointments
VW Clean Diesel PSC appointmentsVW Clean Diesel PSC appointments
VW Clean Diesel PSC appointmentsmzamoralaw
 
Lumber Liquidators MDL goes to Alexandria Virginia
Lumber Liquidators MDL goes to Alexandria VirginiaLumber Liquidators MDL goes to Alexandria Virginia
Lumber Liquidators MDL goes to Alexandria Virginiamzamoralaw
 
NEBRASKA TRIAL LAWYERS
NEBRASKA TRIAL LAWYERS NEBRASKA TRIAL LAWYERS
NEBRASKA TRIAL LAWYERS mzamoralaw
 
NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CEASE AND DESIST LETTER HERBAL PRODUCTS
NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CEASE AND DESIST LETTER HERBAL PRODUCTSNEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CEASE AND DESIST LETTER HERBAL PRODUCTS
NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CEASE AND DESIST LETTER HERBAL PRODUCTSmzamoralaw
 
Nucci Target Social Media Discovery
Nucci Target Social Media DiscoveryNucci Target Social Media Discovery
Nucci Target Social Media Discoverymzamoralaw
 
Trail v. Lesko
Trail v. LeskoTrail v. Lesko
Trail v. Leskomzamoralaw
 
Trail v. lesko (social media discovery)
Trail v. lesko (social media discovery)Trail v. lesko (social media discovery)
Trail v. lesko (social media discovery)mzamoralaw
 
NCAA CONCUSSION MDL, ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
NCAA CONCUSSION MDL, ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEENCAA CONCUSSION MDL, ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
NCAA CONCUSSION MDL, ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEmzamoralaw
 
Schedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDER
Schedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDERSchedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDER
Schedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDERmzamoralaw
 
Morcellator Lawyer Georgia
Morcellator Lawyer GeorgiaMorcellator Lawyer Georgia
Morcellator Lawyer Georgiamzamoralaw
 
First LowT Complaint filed in Georgia Punitive Damages
First LowT Complaint filed in Georgia Punitive DamagesFirst LowT Complaint filed in Georgia Punitive Damages
First LowT Complaint filed in Georgia Punitive Damagesmzamoralaw
 

More from mzamoralaw (20)

Ladue
LadueLadue
Ladue
 
MGM Complaint
MGM ComplaintMGM Complaint
MGM Complaint
 
Wright v marshaw
Wright v marshawWright v marshaw
Wright v marshaw
 
Worley v. YMCA
Worley v. YMCAWorley v. YMCA
Worley v. YMCA
 
Mdl 2767-initial transfer-03-17 (1)
Mdl 2767-initial transfer-03-17 (1)Mdl 2767-initial transfer-03-17 (1)
Mdl 2767-initial transfer-03-17 (1)
 
Judge's ruling on seeling bills to 3rd party
Judge's ruling on seeling bills to 3rd partyJudge's ruling on seeling bills to 3rd party
Judge's ruling on seeling bills to 3rd party
 
VW Clean Diesel PSC appointments
VW Clean Diesel PSC appointmentsVW Clean Diesel PSC appointments
VW Clean Diesel PSC appointments
 
Lumber Liquidators MDL goes to Alexandria Virginia
Lumber Liquidators MDL goes to Alexandria VirginiaLumber Liquidators MDL goes to Alexandria Virginia
Lumber Liquidators MDL goes to Alexandria Virginia
 
NEBRASKA TRIAL LAWYERS
NEBRASKA TRIAL LAWYERS NEBRASKA TRIAL LAWYERS
NEBRASKA TRIAL LAWYERS
 
NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CEASE AND DESIST LETTER HERBAL PRODUCTS
NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CEASE AND DESIST LETTER HERBAL PRODUCTSNEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CEASE AND DESIST LETTER HERBAL PRODUCTS
NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CEASE AND DESIST LETTER HERBAL PRODUCTS
 
Nucci Target Social Media Discovery
Nucci Target Social Media DiscoveryNucci Target Social Media Discovery
Nucci Target Social Media Discovery
 
Trail v. Lesko
Trail v. LeskoTrail v. Lesko
Trail v. Lesko
 
Aps
ApsAps
Aps
 
Trail v. lesko (social media discovery)
Trail v. lesko (social media discovery)Trail v. lesko (social media discovery)
Trail v. lesko (social media discovery)
 
NCAA CONCUSSION MDL, ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
NCAA CONCUSSION MDL, ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEENCAA CONCUSSION MDL, ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
NCAA CONCUSSION MDL, ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
 
USA v.Mira
USA v.Mira USA v.Mira
USA v.Mira
 
Schedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDER
Schedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDERSchedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDER
Schedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDER
 
Ftc national
Ftc nationalFtc national
Ftc national
 
Morcellator Lawyer Georgia
Morcellator Lawyer GeorgiaMorcellator Lawyer Georgia
Morcellator Lawyer Georgia
 
First LowT Complaint filed in Georgia Punitive Damages
First LowT Complaint filed in Georgia Punitive DamagesFirst LowT Complaint filed in Georgia Punitive Damages
First LowT Complaint filed in Georgia Punitive Damages
 

Marionv orlando

  • 1. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2011 MARIE MARION and CRAIG TENNANT, Appellants, v. Case No. 5D06-4243 ORLANDO PAIN & MEDICAL REHABILITATION, etc., et al., Appellees. ________________________________/ Opinion filed January 12, 2011 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Debra S. Nelson, Judge. Jerry H. Jeffery, Jr., Maitland, for Appellants. Donald N. Williams of the Law Office of Piercy J. Stakelum, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees. ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS TORPY, J. Appellees, Ralph Porto and Brian Burns, move for sanctions based upon an improper motion for rehearing directed to our per curiam, without opinion, disposition of this appeal.
  • 2. This appeal challenged the dismissal of one count of a multi-count complaint. Suffice it to say that we determined that the trial court correctly dismissed the count, and that Appellant, Craig Tennant, had been offered ample opportunity to correct the defective pleading through several amendments. Although the facts of the case were somewhat novel, the issues of law were not. Our decision to dispose of the case without opinion was the product of our considered determination that no new or novel point of law was involved and that no further review would be available even if we were to write an opinion. In response to our decision, Appellant, through his counsel, filed his MOTION FOR REHEARING OR CERTIFICATION TO THE SUPREME COURT. The first two paragraphs in the motion state as follows: 1. Oh. 2. Please forgive in advance if, through the words of this Motion you can hear the author screaming, but I cannot overcome my indignation engendered by this Honorable Court's per curiam affirmance of the lower court's order. I understand that Motions for Rehearing are seldom granted by appellate courts, and for good reason. However, I must believe that if I correctly state the facts of this case, the court will retract its opinion and reconsider the issue. I assume that I failed in my obligation in the initial briefs. Thereupon, counsel set forth what he labeled as facts. The statement of facts contained not a single record reference and many of the facts are unsupported by the record. For example, the opening sentence of the statement of “facts” says that Appellees are “both proven con artists . . . ,” yet the record bears no such proof. Nor does a scandalous description such as this have any place in a pleading of this nature. Appellant’s counsel goes on: 6. In short, [Appellees] ran a con, using the (now, surprisingly, defunct) clinic as a shell. And now the Court seems to be saying this is OK in the 2
  • 3. Fifth District. If so, I have lived too long. (I am sorry -- I am screaming again.) In response, Appellees addressed the impropriety of Appellant’s motion in considerable detail and sought sanctions. Rather than withdraw the frivolous and non- compliant motion, Appellant pressed on, albeit with a somewhat more conciliatory tone. Appellant nevertheless delivered a “tit for tat” by demanding that Appellees’ counsel be caused to appear before the court to “explain in detail” his assertion that Appellant’s statement of facts was improper. We have repeatedly admonished the bar regarding the impropriety of motions such as this. See Amador v. Walker, 862 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), and cases cited therein. Motions for rehearing are not to be used for the purpose of venting counsel’s frustrations with the form or substance of the court’s decision. Id. They are rarely, if ever, warranted when the decision is without opinion. See Snell v. State, 522 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (absent a written opinion, motion for rehearing cannot direct court to matters overlooked). In this motion, not only does counsel violate this admonition, he does so unabashedly -- by admitting that it was his primary purpose in filing the motion. The motion itself completely fails to satisfy any of the requisites of a proper motion of this nature or of any other pleading filed by a professional lawyer for that matter. It fails to tell us what “fact” we overlooked. It contains assertions that have no support in the record, are scandalous and are legally irrelevant. The only “facts” that are relevant to an appeal from the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a cause of action are those spelled out in the complaint itself. The motion asserts as a conclusion that our decision conflicts with other precedents but fails to give even a scintilla of analysis as to 3
  • 4. how our disposition of this case conflicts with any of these precedents. The request for “certification” neither identifies any question to be certified nor attempts to explain how any issue in the case could be characterized as one involving great public importance. In short, it is naked re-argument at best and an emotional tirade at worst, neither of which have any place in this Court. Based upon the apparent violations of numerous rules of court and the rules governing the conduct of attorneys, counsel for Appellant, Jerry H. Jeffery, is directed to appear before this Court on February 17, 2011, at 11:30 a.m., to show cause why monetary or other sanctions should not be imposed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410 (a) and (b), and section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2010). The Court reserves jurisdiction for this and other proper purposes. MOTIONS DENIED; SHOW CAUSE ORDER ENTERED. ORFINGER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur. 4