The losing petitioner in Miccosukee Tribe v. Lewis, 38 Fla. L. Weekly
D2088 (Fla. 3rd DCA October 2, 2013), learned a lesson the hard way. The order at issue was an
order clarifying fact discovery deadlines. The petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration, and after losing that and 35 days after the original order,
filed its petition.
1. The
petitioner argued that Judicial Administration Rule 2.514 (b) (“When a party may or must act within a specified time after service and service
is made by mail or e-mail, 5 days are added after the period that would
otherwise expire under subdivision (a)”) rendered the petition timely
since the order had been emailed. The Third District also rejected that
argument, noting that “[t]he additional five-day time period applies when
another rule requires a party to act within a
specified time after service.
Rule 2.514(b)
affords no additional time when a rule (in this
case rule 9.100(c)(1))
requires a party to act within a specified time after rendition of an order.”
n The petitioner also argued that its motion for reconsideration had tolled the time to petition. The court rejected that as well, explaining that an unauthorized motion for rehearing does NOT toll the time for appeal (or, as in this case, a petition for a writ of certiorari).
n The petitioner also argued that its motion for reconsideration had tolled the time to petition. The court rejected that as well, explaining that an unauthorized motion for rehearing does NOT toll the time for appeal (or, as in this case, a petition for a writ of certiorari).
