Mandatory Appellate e-Filing Delayed

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

To allow more time for the deployment of technology to handle it, the Florida Supreme Court has delayed implementation of mandatory e-filing in the Florida appellate courts. The order [.pdf] sets the new deadlines as follows:

  • February 27, 2013, for the Supreme Court.
  • July 22, 2013, for the Second DCA.
  • September 27, 2013, for the Third DCA.
  • October 31, 2013, for the Fourth DCA.
  • November 27, 2013, for the Fifth DCA.
  • December 27, 2013, for the First DCA.

I find it interesting, but not surprising, that the First and Fifth — both of which have already implemented the eDCA filing system — are the last to be brought into the new eFiling system.  They already have an eFiling system that works for them, and I don’t blame them for having difficulties in changing it.

Judges and iPads

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

I had oral argument in the Second DCA this morning, and when our case was called, opposing counsel had stepped out of the room for a moment (to be fair, the court decided to skip the break between sessions, which he did not expect). As I was standing at the podium (with my iPad, of course) I looked up and noticed Judge Crenshaw peck-peck-pecking on what appeared to be an iPad of her own. To pass the time, I asked her about it, and Judge Morris picked up his iPad and all three of them began to chatter about their iPads. In case you were wondering, the judges use iAnnotate to annotate documents. The iPads were provided by the Court. And they all have them!

“Final” Judgment While Appeal Pending is Void

/2 Comments/in , , , , , /by

On a petition for certiorari filed by a non-party challenging a post-judgment discovery order, the Second District Court of Appeal has provided us with some great language on what constitutes a void judgment. In Gibson v. Progress Bank of Florida, No. 2D10-4137 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb. 23, 2011)[.pdf], the court decided what should be a fairly obvious point — that a final judgment entered while an interlocutory appeal is pending is outside the jurisdiction of the trial court and therefore void. This proposition comes directly out of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(f), which states:

In the absence of a stay, during the pendency of a review of a non-final order, the lower tribunal may proceed with all matters, including trial or final hearing; provided that the lower tribunal may not render a final order disposing of the cause pending such review.

(emphasis by Court).

A final summary judgment, all parties agreed, “constitutes a final order disposing of the cause.” The Court held, therefore, that the judgment was null and void, explaining:

A void judgment is “[a] judgment that has no legal force or effect, the invalidity of which may be asserted by any party whose rights are affected at any time and any place, whether directly or collaterally…. It is incapable of being confirmed, ratified, or enforced in any manner or to any degree.”

Applying Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.560, the court concluded that there can be no discovery in aid of execution of a void judgment. Moreover, applying the general discovery rules applicable to pending actions, the court held that discovery from the Petitioners under those rules was irrelevant prior to judgment. Quashing the discovery order, the court concluded “because the final judgment is void, the Petitioners would suffer irreparable harm if forced to disclose their personal financial information.”