# Opposition Brief — Tyler v. Chiles

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386008_1427%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1998
- **Citation:** 525 U.S. 931

## Text

—T

Supreme Court, U.S
Se ag Fae ee

SEP 14 1998

No. 98-274 CLERK

IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1998

DON R. TYLER,
Petitioner,

a

STATE OF FLORIDA, et. al.,

Respondents.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari
To the Circuit Court, Tenth Judicial Circuit,
Polk County, Florida

Brief in Opposition of Respondents
State of Florida, Department of Insurance,
Florida Division of Risk Management,
Florida Division of Insurance Fraud,
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services,
and Florida Division of Forestry

By: Mitchell D. Franks
LANE, TROHN, BERTRAND &VREELAND, P.A.
P.O. Box 3
Lakeland, FL 33802-0003 _
—(941) 284-2200 (941) 688-0310 (fax)
Counsel of Record for Respondents

y

i
QUESTION PRESENTED
I.
Should this Court decline to grant certiorari to review a

fact-specific application of a Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure?

il
PARTIES TO THE CASE

DON R. TYLER: Petitioner

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF INSURANCE, FLORIDA DIVISION OF RISK
MANAGEMENT, FLORIDA DIVISION OF INSURANCE
FRAUD, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AND CONSUMER SERVICES, FLORIDA DIVISION OF
FORESTRY, CRAWFORD AND COMPANY, WILLIAM
L. EARP, M.D., WILLIAM FRIEDMAN, M.D., and J.

MASON WINES, Esq.: _- Respondents

ill
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RUMEN OUEY WURUIIERIT ERD sag ov ce wn oo 8 eos & lene

PRE AIE ED CEM MOPARS: 05 PT SS

py Fe etsy. b 4 yy: SS a ae

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS,

TREATIES, STATUTES

ORDINANCES, AND

REGULATIONS INVOLVED ................

I. THIS COURT SHOULD DECLINE
TO GRANT CERTIORARI TO REVIEW
A FACT-SPECIFIC APPLICATION
OF A FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE
INI 0 a Gs bo tk Che vee a 0

DI sy CC sy 6 0 bik sw oes

iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Braxton v. United States, 500 U.S. 344, 111 S.Ct. 1854
(TOPE kk cae WRC eS CoA ae tie reese 4
CITE) Shek een CON Oe COWEN Wek & ia’ 5

Texas v. Mead, 465 U.S. 1041, 104 S.Ct. 1318
C1OBO) cin ws vice oh ob Weleda te 6 ea Pee 5

United States v. Johnson, 268 U.S. 220, 45 S.Ct 496
SISO SG ks ie bee Oe Oe ee ea eae 5

Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar
Association, 457 U.S. 423, 102 S.Ct. 2515

CEPR PC EO VO 8 ee ee ee aie es 7
OTHER AUTHORITIES

Rule 10, Supreme Court Rules .............. 4,6

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(b) ...... 2

v

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, TREATIES,
STATUTES ORDINANCES,
AND REGULATIONS INVOLVED

1. Rule 10, Supreme Court Rules

‘s Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(b)
(b) Commencement. Jurisdiction of the court under
this rule shall be invoked by filing
2 copies of a notice, accompanied by filing fees
prescribed by law, with the clerk of the lower tribunal
within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.

cs.

7 tee is hie

nd ‘ag? haga? ad Tew

we

ne 3. psis

Na MS Ye

d > | .

Se-k otest Tee
” os, 'y Le anol
naeerene

‘
+ >
:
nl ¢
f i
4 ;
a
.
;

)

oer bet hnd

Le Sabasont —_ |

Bay ie tiiges! r"

e a Wis - 4 ‘eatee 408 2s; : _
ed kl ee ii Re FRED Roar dts

oy tage

ie histh Cea

A
4 7 t.
* *y % ~~ ¢ aa
” y f wy ¢ re ce
on) &,
a
bil bs
is a fs as
~ aed
z ‘ a é c
é
nn
‘
; "
i
"ae | t
« * 4 n
a
L
; fF
, Pa} ree DAS
rn ; Fon i] t
oy x ‘
4 i " ‘ 4
‘ .
one ’
. f 4 Save ‘
. ' View x
p th a t
; ~ +
ae er !
= 4 ¥ Poy f Pe
‘\ J
. 4
bS aS.
vow: S,

l
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Respondents object to Petitioner’s Statement of the
Case because the statement discusses matters not appearing
on the face of the orders for which he seeks review and for
which there is no support in the record. In addition,
Petitioner included in his appendix a copy of the Order
dated July 18, 1996 and included in parenthesis a statement
that this Order was filed in the clerk’s office on September
22, 1996 when in fact it was filed on July 22, 1996, as
reflected in the Order of the Second District Court of
Appeal. For these reasons, Respondents present this
statement summarizing the facts as they appear in the orders
on review.

On February 23, 1996, the trial court entered an
order dismissing Petitioner’s second amended complaint
with prejudice. Petitioner filed a motion for clarification on
February 28, 1996. Subsequently, the judge who entered
that order was disqualified. Petitioner then filed a timely
motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing his
second amended complaint, requesting recov1sideration based

on the disqualification of Judge Durrance, who entered the

order.

The new judge assigned to the case, Judge Young,
granted the motion for reconsideration. After a review, the
Court~éntered an order on July 22, 1996 essentially

deoliieciaco
affirming Judge Durrance’s prior order and dismissed the
Petitioner’s complaint with prejudice. On September 30,
1996, petitioner filed a notice of appeal on September 30,
1996.

The Second District Court of Appeal denied
jurisdiction to hear the appeal because Petitioner failed to
file his notice of appeal within 30 days of the July 22, 1996
order as required by Rule 9.110(b), Fla. R. App. P. The
Second District Court of Appeal’s Order centered around
the date Judge Durrance’s original order dismissing the
complaint with prejudice was rendered. The Second
District held that Petitioner’s motion for clarification filed
on February 28, 1996 was not an authorized motion that
delayed rendition of the order; however, the February 23,
1996 order was delayed by Judge Durrance’s
disqualification and Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration,
reviving the trial court’s jurisdiction for the limited purpose

of reviewing the previous judicial orders entered by Judge

_

3

22, 1996, the trial court’s subsequent jurisdiction
evaporated, and the February 23, 1996 order was rendered.
Thus, with a July 22, 1996 rendition date, Petitioner’s
notice of appeal was untimely.

Petitioner then petitioned the Florida Supreme Court
who declined jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

4
ARGUMENT
I. THIS COURT SHOULD DECLINE TO GRANT

CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A FACT-SPECIFIC

APPLICATION OF A FLORIDA RULE OF

APPELLATE PROCEDURE.

Rule 10, Sup. Ct. R., states that review on a writ of
certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion
and will be granted only for compelling reasons. Such
compelling reasons principally include cases in which a
United States court of appeals has entered a decision in
conflict with another United States court of appeals or with
a state court of last resort on an important federal question;
a state court of last resort has decided an important federal
question in a way which conflicts with the decision of
another state court or United States court of appeals; or a
state court or United States court of appeals has decided an
important federal question in a way that conflicts with

relevant decisions of the United States Supreme Court.

5

Rule 10, Sup. Ct. R.; see also, Braxton v. United States,
500 U.S. 344, 111 S.Ct. 1854 (1991). This Court has
repeatedly held that it will not exercise its certiorari
jurisdiction merely to review a decision of a state court
turning upon an analysis of the particular facts involved.
See, e.g. Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 94 S.Ct. 2437
(1974); Texas v. Mead, 465 U.S. 1041, 104 S.Ct. 1318
(1984); United States v. Johnston, 268 U.S. 220, 45 S.Ct.
496 (1924).

Respondents submit that it is precisely this type of
decision which Petitioner now asks this Court to grant
certiorari to review. None of the Rule 10 reasons
referenced above exist in the present case to justify
certiorari review. Contrary to Petitioner’s statement of the
issues, this case involves no conflict among state courts or

United States courts of appeal. Neither does it involve the

6

resolution of an important federal question in conflict with
this Court’s prior decisions. Instead this case involves a
fact-specific application of Florida’s appellate rules of
procedure to determine whether Petitioner’s notice of appeal
was timely.

By Writ of Certiorari, Petitioner now seeks to have
this Court review the propriety of the lower court’s
dismissal of his action, the ruling made by Florida’s Second
District Court of Appeal that the notice of appeal was
untimely, and the Florida Supreme Court’s denial of
jurisdiction to hear the matter. Petitioner characterizes the
issues On appeal as whether he was denied by these rulings
his right to a jury trial under Title 42 U.S.C. §1983,
U.S.C.A. VII, and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
Petitioner seeks to have this Court review as a substantive

matter the original order of dismissal entered by Judge

-
Durrance and affirmed upon reconsideration by Judge
Young In his petition, however, Petitioner fails to
demonstrate how the original dismissal involves an
appropriate conflict concerning an important federal
question in order to justify this Court’s review. That failure
notwithstanding, the real question at issue is simply whether
Petitio:..c properly preserved his right to appeal under
Florida appellate rules of procedure.

As such, review of this case would first require this
Court to determine whether as a procedural matter the
Petitioner’s appeal to the Second District Court was timely.
This Court does not use its certiorari jurisdiction to re-
evaluate fact-specific applications of state court rules of
procedure. Rule 10, Sup. Ct. R. Under the doctrine of
comity, state courts should be allowed to develop rules

governing their own state courts and decide issues

8

concerning those rules without oversight from the federal
system, especially when the interpretation of those rules
concern no important federal rights. See, i.e., Middlesex
County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Association,
457 U.S. 423, 102S.Ct. 2515 (1982)(in state court civil
proceedings where state interests are involved, the Federal
Courts should abstain unless state law clearly bars the
imposition of constitutional claims). In this case, the
Second District Court decided that Petitioner’s appeal was
untimely under Florida’s appellate rules of procedure.
Despite Petitioner’s attempt to characterize it as something
else, this decision does not involve a conflict concerning an
important federal question. Rather, it involves only a
factual determination based upon the interpretation of these
appellate rules under Florida’s decisional precedent. As

such, there is no basis to grant certiorari review, and the

Petition should be denied.

10
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should deny

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Respectfully submitted,

Mitchell D. Franks

Fla. Bar No.: 0102824
LANE, TROHN, BERTRAND
& VREELAND, P.A.

P.O. Box 3

Lakeland, FL 33802-0003
(941) 284-2200

(941) 688-0310 (fax)
Counsel for Respondents

7 .

ete

Sere pai

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386008_1427%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.