PADILLA v. CAPITAL ONE (2024)

Appellant challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to quash service of process and the subsequent denial of his motion for sanctions and motion to dismiss. The orders denying appellant's motion for sanctions and motion to dismiss are not appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, and we therefore dismiss the appeal as to those orders. We affirm the order denying appellant's motion to quash service of process.

Appellant claims he was denied due process when the motion to quash was scheduled at a time for which he had filed a notice of unavailability. However, he did not move for a continuance. “Although a notice of unavailability is a useful pleading for apprising the court and the parties of potential scheduling conflicts and for assisting them in efforts to accommodate counsel, it is not an adequate substitute for obtaining a continuance order.” Delio v. Landman, 987 So. 2d 733, 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). And while appellant apparently tried to attend the hearing by Zoom, the motion was set for an in-person hearing, and appellant never made a motion to appear using communication technology. See Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.530(b). Finally, because there is no transcript of the hearing, and the trial court's ruling comes to us with the presumption of correctness, appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979).

Affirmed as to the order denying appellant's motion to quash service of process; dismissed as to the orders denying appellant's motion for sanctions and motion to dismiss.

Per Curiam.

Warner, May and Artau, JJ., concur.