MURPHY v. SPINOSO (2025)

We hereby dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari as untimely. The Petitioner objected to Respondents’ notice of production from non-party. The trial court overruled those objections on August 5, 2024. The very next day, the Petitioner moved for reconsideration of that order and her counsel filed a motion for protective order making the same arguments. While these motions were pending, the Petitioner did not timely seek certiorari review of the August 5, 2024, order in this Court.

The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration on October 30, 2024, and counsel's motion for protective order on December 17, 2024. Petitioner filed the petition for certiorari on December 20, 2024.

The petition should have been filed within thirty days of the August 5, 2024, order. Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(c); § 59.081(2), Fla. Stat. (2024) (“Failure to invoke the jurisdiction of any such court within the time prescribed by such rules shall divest such court of jurisdiction to review such cause.”). Petitioner cannot evade the strict time requirements set forth in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100 by having her counsel file a second motion directed at the very same issue. See Decktight Roofing Services, Inc. v. Amwest Sur. Ins., 841 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Bensonhurst Drywall, Inc. v. Ledesma, 583 So. 2d 1094, 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Blades v. Henry, 720 So. 2d 323, 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The filing of successive motions does not revive or extend the time to file a petition for writ of certiorari.

Dismissed.

PER CURIAM.