YUDOVICH v. INVESTMENT 1611 LLC (2026)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Loren YUDOVICH, Appellant, v. INVESTMENT 1611, LLC, Appellee.

No. 3D25-0384

Decided: July 09, 2026

Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ.

Open Book Appeals, and Erin Pogue Newell (Fort Lauderdale); Tammi A. Calarco, P.A., and Tammi A. Calarco, for appellant. Lauren Luck, P.A., and Lauren J. Luck, for appellee.

Affirmed. See J.J.K. Intern., Inc. v. Shivbaran, 985 So. 2d 66, 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (stating that an order on a motion for rehearing is reviewed for an abuse of discretion); Fision Corp. v. Frueh, 369 So. 3d 1211, 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) (“[T]rial courts need not grant rehearing when the movant raises a new argument that could have, and should have, been raised prior to entry of summary judgment.”); Melrose Ventures, LLC v. Uptempo Mktg. Corp., 418 So. 3d 217, 219 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025) (“Appellants’ argument fails because the trial court was not required to consider an argument that Appellants asserted for the first time in a motion for rehearing. While the trial court had discretion to grant rehearing and then consider Appellants’ new argument, it was not required to do so.”); Ray Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Florida Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 406 So. 3d 1086, 1088 n 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (“[B]ecause these arguments were not raised below until Ray Medical Center's motion for rehearing, we find them to be unpreserved.”).

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Out of date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