Johnson v. Snyder

• Decision Date: 13 May 2020
• Docket Number: No. 1D19-2551,1D19-2551
• Citation: 296 So.3d 547
• Parties: Earl M. JOHNSON, Jr., Petitioner, v. Jeremy David SNYDER and Aida Marta Ramirez, Respondents.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

296 So.3d 547

Earl M. JOHNSON, Jr., Petitioner,

v.Jeremy David SNYDER and Aida Marta Ramirez, Respondents.

No. 1D19-2551

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 13, 2020

Earl M. Johnson, Jr., pro se, Petitioner.

Nicholas Martino, Jacksonville, for Respondents.

Per Curiam.

In this petition for writ of certiorari, Petitioner seeks review of two nonfinal orders, the first denying his motion to strike the intervenor's pleading and the second granting the intervenor's motion to require a lis pendens bond. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioner claims that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law, resulting in irreparable injury, when it denied Petitioner's motion to strike the intervenor's answer with counterclaim. Respondents counter that the certiorari petition is untimely under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(c)(1) because it was filed more than thirty days after rendition of the trial court's order granting intervention on March 29, 2018. See Caldwell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 980 So. 2d 1226, 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (holding that the thirty-day time limit for filing a certiorari petition is jurisdictional and not merely a matter of procedure); Wibbens v. State, Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, Bureau of Driver Improvement , 956 So. 2d 503, 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (same).

Although Petitioner claims that his petition was timely because it was filed fewer than thirty days after rendition of the trial court's order denying Petitioner's motion to strike the intervenor's pleading, this assertion is incorrect because the thirty-day deadline ended on Friday, July 12, 2019, and the petition was not filed until Monday, July 15, 2019. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction as it relates to the trial court's order denying Petitioner's motion to strike the answer with counterclaim.

Petitioner also claims that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law, resulting in irreparable injury, when it granted the intervenor's motion to require a lis pendens bond. Again, Respondents assert that the certiorari petition is untimely under rule 9.100(c)(1) because it was filed more than thirty days after rendition of the trial court's order denying the intervenor's motion to dissolve notice of lis pendens but granting the intervenor's motion to require a lis pendens bond. Petitioner counters that the filing of his motion for...