Briefing Deadlines Fixed

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

A vintage image of a girl in a boat adorning a calendar from January 1920

The Appellate Rules Committee was not caught without a paddle and fixed a deadline glitch before January 1, 2019.

The Florida Supreme Court fixed briefing deadlines for cross-appeals and dependency and parental rights termination cases, effective January 1, 2019 at 12:03 am.

One of the biggest changes to the Appellate Rules this year is the counterbalancing of the deletion of 5 extra days for mailing with the lengthening of most appellate deadlines. Generally speaking, most deadlines that were formerly 5 days are now 10, for example, and the brief deadlines that used to be 20 days are now 30, and deadlines that used to be 10 days are now 15. You read that right — even though we’ve lost mailing days, we generally now have five or more additional days to serve most items. (Why or more? Because when the Court took away mailing days, it also gave a little extra boon of allowing you to start counting “on the next day that isn’t a “Saturday, Sunday, or Legal Holiday” rather than the next day, so you are no longer starting 3 days into your response time when you walk into your office on Monday morning to find something was filed after hours on Friday. We break down the new math in a prior blog post).

With all of those rule changes (three different orders!) something was bound to fall through the cracks. Under the October 25, 2018 orders, two appellate rules — Rules 9.146 and 9.210 — inadvertently kept the old, shorter deadlines. Luckly, the Appellate Rules Committee was on it, and moved the Florida Supreme Court for rehearing to fix the oversight. Rather than grant rehearing, the Court treated the motion as an “out of cycle report” from the committee, adopting the changes and making them in effect as 12:03am on January 1, 2019. See In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.146 & 9.210, No. SC18-1917, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S602 (Fla. Dec. 6, 2018)[.pdf]. Now cross appeal briefs have the same amount of time as initial and answer briefs, 30 days from service of the last brief. See Rule 9.210. And in dependency and termination of parental rights proceedings, practitioners also have the benefit of additional time (30 days for an answer and 15 days for a reply). See Rule 9.146.

The fully integrated .pdf rule set is now available on the Florida Bar’s website. Moreover, the fully integrated revised rules are also available at http://rules.floridaappellate.com.

New Rule 9.380 Allows Notification of Related Cases

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A public domain image of sketches of various courtroom scenes

Are these cases related?
If they are, now you can tell the appellate court.
Source: The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs: Print Collection, The New York Public Library. Familiar scenes and faces in court. Retrieved from http://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/9b51c6ed-b3d7-a26c-e040-e00a18061941


Among the many rule changes effective January 1, 2019, the Florida Supreme Court has created a new mechanism to notify an appellate court of related pending cases. New Rule 9.380 allows parties, without argument, to inform an appellate court of “related case or issue” that is either “arising out of the same proceeding in the lower tribunal,” or, helpfully, “involving a similar issue of law.”

How is this helpful to the appellate practitioner? If you are watching an issue develop and percolate in the trial courts or district courts, you can now notify the courts of other pending appeals or trial court decisions on the issue. Make note that this notice is not an opportunity to make additional argument: the rule expressly states that the notice “shall not contain argument.” Still, it’s a way to direct the courts to attempt uniformity in rulings.

Because there is no argument involved, the notice should follow the simple format of new Rule 9.900(k) [.pdf].

Old cartoon of man with bike quarreling with another man over a stone in the roadway.

Now You Can Appeal Two More Types of Nonfinal Orders

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , , , /by

 

Old cartoon of man with bike quarreling with another man over a stone in the roadway.

Are these two gentlemen arguing over
whether they have a settlement?
Now they can let the appellate courts figure it out.

Today is the day that a myriad of changes to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure go into effect. We’ve previously outlined all of the changes, but in our first post of 2019 we’ll focus in on the changes to Rule 9.130, which governs what kind of nonfinal orders you can immediately appeal to Florida District Courts.

Orders that decline to enforce a settlement agreement.

Rule 9.130 contains the exclusive list of non-final orders that are reviewable by appeal in the district courts.  As of January 1, parties will be able to obtain an immediate appeal from an order that determines “that, as a matter of law, a settlement agreement is unenforceable, is set aside, or never existed.”

This change appears to have been inspired by a law review article I co-authored with Anthony Russo and Ezequiel Lugo in 2013.  In the midst of investigating a proposed “functional restatement” to certiorari review, we looked into review of orders denying a motion to enforce settlement (see pages 417-424 of the linked article).  No avenue for review existed at the time, but as we discussed the matter we reasoned that immediate review of such an order would further the interests in judicial economy and support the long-established public policy favoring settlements.  The Appellate Court Rules Committee considered our article and also thought that immediate review of such an order would be worthwhile.  They made the recommendation to the Florida Supreme Court, and in this recent wave of amendments, the supreme court adopted this provision into the rules.

This rule will be useful when one party thinks that a settlement has been reached, but the other party either denies the same or refuses to comply with the settlement.  The party seeking to enforce the settlement may file a “motion to enforce settlement” in the trial court, attempting to either confirm the settlement or force the other party to comply.  Should the trial court deny the motion for whatever reason, that order would now be immediately appealable.

Orders that grant or deny a motion to disqualify counsel.

Similarly, parties may now also receive immediate review of orders that “grant or deny a motion to disqualify counsel.”  This type of motion has always been reviewable by certiorari, but given that higher standard of review, was not likely to provide any immediate relief.  Now, parties may seek immediate review regarding disqualification, and avoid the likelihood that the trial would have to proceed all the way through conclusion and then ultimately be invalidated on appeal just to send the parties back to the beginning.

Another consideration–a stay.

An appeal of either of these orders will not automatically delay the trial court proceedings while the appellate court considers the appeal.  Consequently, either party may want to move the trial court to stay the proceedings pending the appellate court’s ruling on the matter.  Doing so would avoid the risk of wasted effort and resources should the appellate court ultimately determine that there was an enforceable settlement agreement, or that the trial court erred in either disqualifying or refusing to disqualify counsel.

Motions for stay are governed by rule 9.310 and initially filed in the trial court in most cases.  Review of an order granting or denying a stay is by motion in the appellate court.  Both involve an in-depth analysis of the likelihood of prevailing on appeal and the risk of irreparable harm should a stay not be granted.

Can you use these new rules to your advantage?  Call us!

Non-final review jurisdictional issues and stays pending appeal are sometimes simple, but in our experience will often become complex issues that can determine the course of all future litigation.  We often handle these situations on behalf of clients or in cooperation with trial attorneys as part of our regular practice.  Feel free to contact us if you have any questions involving these or any other issues regarding non-final appeals, certiorari review, or stays pending appeal.