Court Opinion

ID: 9941762
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-16 21:03:54.2164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:59.924983
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                      Case No. 5D23-1784
                  LT Case No. 2022-CA-006818
                 _____________________________

THE WALSH GROUP d/b/a Archer
Western Contractors, LLC,

    Appellant,

    v.

ZION JACKSONVILLE, LLC,
FLORIDA ROADS TRUCKING, LLC,
GEC TRUCKING AND
CONSTRUCTION, INC., f/k/a GEC
Trucking, Inc., CAPPS LAND
MANAGEMENT AND TRUCKING
INC., et al.,

    Appellees.
                 _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
Bruce R. Anderson, Jr., Judge.

Timothy D. Woodward and Alyssa Cory, of Shutts & Bowen LLP,
Tampa, for Appellant.

Niels P. Murphy and Davis D. Balz, of Murphy & Anderson, P.A.,
and Andrew P. Brigham and Trevor S. Hutson, of Brigham
Property Rights Law Firm, PLLC, St. Augustine, for Appellee
Zion Jacksonville, LLC.

No Appearance for Remaining Appellees.
                         February 16, 2024

            ON NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

PER CURIAM.

    Following oral argument, Appellee (“Zion”) filed a notice of
supplemental authority. The notice asked us to consider Navarro
v. Varela, 345 So. 3d 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). Zion’s notice also
attached the plaintiff’s complaint from that case.

     A notice of supplemental authority is “reserved for
extraordinary circumstances or situations where a new case or
legal authority has just been published that might impact a fully
briefed (but not yet decided) appeal.” Houston v. Wrentmore, 362
So. 3d 252, 254 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023) (quoting Davi Nails Salon &
Spa, L.L.C. v. Do, 346 So. 3d 1288, 1289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)). “No
such extraordinary circumstances or situations existed here,”
where the opinion Zion cited in its notice “was readily available
long before” briefing was due in this case. See id.

     That aside, the opinion Zion cited has no precedential value
on the “incorporated by reference” issue. Specifically, the Navarro
opinion does not use the term “reincorporation,” discuss the
procedural effects of attaching a contract to a complaint, or
mention Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.130(b). Perhaps in
recognition of this fact, Zion tacitly invites us to look beyond the
Navarro opinion to consider the plaintiff’s complaint in that case,
a complaint that was not appended to the Third District’s decision.
This is improper. If “an issue is not argued, or though argued is
ignored by the court, or is reserved, the decision does not constitute
a precedent to be followed.” Physicians Med. Ctrs. v. Allstate Fire
& Cas. Ins. Co., 335 So. 3d 1284, 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (quoting
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. Trabucco, 791 F.2d 1, 4 (1st
Cir. 1986)). “Only the written, majority opinion of an appellate
court has precedential value.” Miller v. State, 980 So. 2d 1092, 1094
(Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Zion’s attempt to bolster its notice of
supplemental authority with a trial court pleading is misguided.

                                  2
    For these reasons, we strike the notice of supplemental
authority as unauthorized.

    NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY STRICKEN.

EDWARDS, C.J., and LAMBERT and JAY, JJ., concur.

                              3