Case Name: Christian N. ZARRA; Genesis One, LLC; and Lee Alexander, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. Ken BURKE, Clerk of the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, Florida, and as representative of all other Florida clerks of the circuit courts similarly situated, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2010-02-24
Citations: 28 So. 3d 191
Docket Number: No. 2D09-1181
Parties: Christian N. ZARRA; Genesis One, LLC; and Lee Alexander, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. Ken BURKE, Clerk of the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, Florida, and as representative of all other Florida clerks of the circuit courts similarly situated, Appellee.
Judges: LaROSE, J., and FULMER, CAROLYN K, Senior Judge, Concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 28
Pages: 191–193

Head Matter:
Christian N. ZARRA; Genesis One, LLC; and Lee Alexander, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. Ken BURKE, Clerk of the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, Florida, and as representative of all other Florida clerks of the circuit courts similarly situated, Appellee.
No. 2D09-1181.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Feb. 24, 2010.
Andra T. Dreyfus and Morten B. Chris-toffersen of Andra Todd Dreyfus, P.A., Clearwater; and F. Wallace Pope, Jr., and Kimberly L. Sharpe of Johnson, Pope, Bo-kor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP, Clearwater, for Appellants.
Barry Richard and Glenn T. Burhans, Jr., of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Christian N. Zarra filed a class action complaint seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the clerk of court's authority to charge a reopen fee for cases previously reported as disposed of. The complaint also sought a refund of the disputed fees. Zarra made three attempts to amend the complaint to overcome pleading deficiencies. Because the second amended complaint failed to cure the deficiencies, the trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and, thus, did not address the underlying challenge to the reopen fee. Therefore, the only issue before this court, for de novo review, is whether the com plaint states a cause of action. See Lutz Lake Fern Rd. Neighborhood Groups, Inc. v. Hillsborough County, 779 So.2d 380 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). In a lengthy order, the trial court noted the pleading deficiencies and explained its reasoning for dismissal. We agree with the trial court's ruling and, therefore, affirm.
LaROSE, J., and FULMER, CAROLYN K, Senior Judge, Concur.
VILLANTI, J., Concurs specially with opinion.