AKTAN v. GOTHAM COLLECTION SERVICES CORP (2020)

Appellants Ali Aktan and USA Moonstar, LLC each appeal a final summary judgment entered against them in a collection suit filed by Gotham Collection Services, Corp.

We dismiss the appeal as to appellant USA Moonstar, LLC, as it failed to comply with this court's order directing it to retain counsel to prosecute this appeal. Moonstar instead attempted to appear through co-appellant Ali Aktan. However, Mr. Aktan is not a licensed Florida attorney and Moonstar cannot proceed pro se or otherwise through Mr. Aktan. See Golden Gate Homes, LC v. Levey, 59 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding an LLC must be represented by counsel in litigation) (citing Szteinbaum v. Kaes Inversiones y Valores, C.A., 476 So. 2d 247, 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (holding: “It is well recognized that a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself and cannot appear in a court of law without an attorney”).

As to appellant Aktan, and following our de novo review, see Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000), we affirm, because Gotham's motion for summary judgment and the attachments thereto established there was no genuine issue of material fact in dispute and that Gotham was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Aktan failed to provide admissible evidence in opposition to the motion for summary judgment to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. The trial court properly entered final summary judgment. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) (providing in pertinent part: “The judgment sought must be rendered immediately if the pleadings and summary judgment evidence on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law”); Keys Country Resort, LLC v. 1733 Overseas Highway, LLC, 272 So. 3d 500, 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (noting that “affidavits opposing summary judgment must identify ‘admissible evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact.’ Panzera v. O'Neal, 198 So. 3d 663, 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). The purpose of this requirement is ‘to ensure that there is an admissible evidentiary basis for the case rather than mere supposition or belief.’ Alvarez v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc., 661 So. 2d 1230, 1232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995))” (additional citations omitted); Gidwani v. Roberts, 248 So. 3d 203, 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (observing that an opposing party must do more than merely assert that an issue exists in order to defeat a legally sufficient motion for summary judgment). To the extent Aktan contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for a continuance or for additional time before entering summary judgment in favor of Gotham, the failure to include a transcript of the relevant proceedings is fatal to a determination of whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying this request. See Umana v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 282 So. 3d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). We find the remaining issues are without merit.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.

EMAS, C.J.