ORREGO v. CITIBANK (2019)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Alba M. ORREGO, Appellant, v. CITIBANK, N.A., etc., Appellee.

No. 3D18-173

Decided: July 31, 2019

Before EMAS, C.J., and LOGUE, and GORDO, JJ.

The Law Office of Ray Garcia, P.A., Ray Garcia and Nataline Garcia, for appellant. Akerman, LLP, Nancy M. Wallace (Tallahassee), William P. Heller (Ft. Lauderdale) and Eric M. Levine (West Palm Beach), for appellee.

Affirmed. See Congress Park Office Condos II, LLC v. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 105 So. 3d 602, 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“A trial court does not abuse its discretion in granting a motion for summary judgment, despite the pendency of discovery, where the non-moving party has failed to act diligently in taking advantage of discovery opportunities.”); Harper v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., 134 So. 3d 557, 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (“[A]fter a motion for summary judgment is filed and scheduled, the non-moving party cannot thwart the summary judgment hearing by initiating discovery.”); Leviton v. Philly Steak-Out, Inc., 533 So. 2d 905, 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (“[T]he defendants did not request a continuance of the summary judgment hearing so that they could complete their discovery and cannot now be heard to complain that they were not given a reasonable time to complete same.”).

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Out of date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