Amanda Wettstein Talmage, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Jimmy Conner, Don Magruder, William Jones, Ro-mac Lumber and Supply, Inc., Citizens Speaking Out Committee, and Citizens for Better Government, Appellees/Cross-Appellants. (2024)

On Motion to Enforce Mandate

Amanda Talmage petitions for a writ of certiorari, seeking review of a non-final order allowing Jimmy Conner to file a third amended complaint against her.^* In the litigation between these parties, this Court previously issued a mandate in this case, 5D20-2462, on November 22, 2021, affirming the lower tribunal's dismissal with prejudice of all claims against Talmage. Talmage filed the instant petition as a new appellate proceeding, 5D22-2598, which this Court has determined will be treated as a motion to enforce the mandate in 5D20-2462.

Having reviewed the extensive record and considered the parties’ detailed appellate submissions, the Court grants Appellant's motion to enforce mandate. Under the law of the case doctrine, the trial court erred in allowing Conner the opportunity to file an amended complaint; this Court previously affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of all of Conner's claims against Talmage. Conner now attempts to assert claims substantially the same as those raised or that could have been raised previously. Indeed, the cause of action in Conner's “third amended complaint (revised)” is substantially the same as the claim previously dismissed with prejudice in the trial court and affirmed on appeal by this Court. Moreover, Conner's argument in support of further amendment was previously rejected, thereby making it improper to seek to circumvent this Court's decision and mandate.

It is hereby ordered that Conner's “third amended complaint (revised)” is stricken and that the trial court shall abide by this Court's previous mandate in 5D20-2462 and disallow any further amended complaint by Conner against Talmage.

Motion to Enforce Mandate Granted.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   Review is also sought of the denial of Talmage's motion for sanctions against Conner and his attorneys. The denial of Appellant's motion for sanctions is not reviewable as a nonfinal order and will not be addressed.

Per Curiam.

Makar, Lambert, and Jay, JJ., concur.