PEREZ v. ROBINSON COMPANY APM (2022)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Ulises PEREZ, Appellant, v. C. H. ROBINSON COMPANY, and APM & Associates, Inc., etc., Appellees.

No. 3D21-840

Decided: August 10, 2022

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

Rubenstein Law, P.A., and Gregory Deutch; Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., and Adam Richardson (West Palm Beach), for appellant. Fowler White Burnett, P.A., and Richard Morris and J. Michael Pennekamp, for appellee C. H. Robinson Company; Cole, Scott & Kissane, P. A., and Lissette Gonzalez, for appellee APM & Associates, Inc.

Affirmed. See Leo's Gulf Liquors v. Lakhani, 802 So. 2d 337, 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“We conclude that the trial judge's thoughtful and complete analysis of the facts presented in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss for fraud upon the court is amply supported by the record and does not constitute an abuse of discretion.”); Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Martinsen, 736 So. 2d 794, 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (“[A] party who has been guilty of fraud or misconduct in the prosecution or defense of a civil proceeding should not be permitted to continue to employ the very institution it has subverted to achieve her ends.” (quoting Hanono v. Murphy, 723 So. 2d 892, 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998))).

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Out of date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