FILOMIA v. CELEBRITY CRUISES INC (2019)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Ingrid FILOMIA, Appellant, v. CELEBRITY CRUISES INC. and Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission, Appellees.

No. 3D18-2208

Decided: April 24, 2019

Before EMAS, C.J., and SALTER, and MILLER, JJ.

Ingrid Filomia, in proper person. Amanda L. Neff (Tallahassee), Deputy General Counsel & Chief Appellate Attorney, for appellee Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission.

Although we are sympathetic to appellant's personal tragedy, it is well-settled that “in appellate proceedings ․ the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error,” thus, we affirm.¹ Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahasee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979); see Steele v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 596 So.2d 1190, 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (“The burden of properly presenting a case to this court for review must therefore remain squarely upon the litigant, whether represented by counsel or not.”); see also J.A.B. Enters. v. Gibbons, 596 So.2d 1247, 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (“[A]n issue not raised in an initial brief is deemed abandoned.”) (citations omitted).

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1. “In Florida, pro se litigants are bound by the same rules that apply to counsel.” Stueber v. Gallagher, 812 So.2d 454, 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (citing Kohn v. City of Miami Beach, 611 So.2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) ).

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Out of date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