MARTINEZ v. CITY OF MIAMI (2025)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Irma MARTINEZ, et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF MIAMI, Appellee.

No. 3D23-1426

Decided: February 26, 2025

Before LOGUE, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and MILLER, JJ.

Divya Khullar (Lighthouse Point), for appellants. George K. Wysong III, City Attorney, and Eric J. Eves, Assistant City Attorney Supervisor, for appellee.

Affirmed. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(a) (“To preserve for appeal a challenge to the failure of the trial court to make required findings of fact in the final judgment, a party must raise that issue in a motion for rehearing under this rule.”); Hardison v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D2385, ––– So.3d ––––, 2024 WL 4897372 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 27, 2024); see also Arguelles v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 278 So. 3d 108, 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“[W]e review a denial of a motion for rehearing under an abuse of discretion standard.”); Mane FL Corp. v. Beckman, 355 So. 3d 418, 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (“There was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination ‘that a counter-affidavit presented for the first time on rehearing of a summary judgment is too late.’ ” (citing to Pangilinan v. Broward Cnty., 914 So. 2d 1094, 1097 (Fla4th DCA 2005))).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network