Court Opinion

ID: 9929329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 15:05:06.102996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:06:47.309467
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                      Case Nos. 5D20-2462
                                5D21-0224
                  LT Case No. 2017-CA-001872
                 _____________________________

AMANDA WETTSTEIN TALMAGE,

    Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

    v.

JIMMY CONNER, DON
MAGRUDER, WILLIAM JONES, RO-
MAC LUMBER AND SUPPLY, INC.,
CITIZENS SPEAKING OUT
COMMITTEE, and CITIZENS FOR
BETTER GOVERNMENT,

    Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
                _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County.
Brian Welke, Judge.

Laura K. Hargrove, of Gause & Hargrove, PLLC, Tavares, for
Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Marie A. Mattox, of Marie A. Mattox, P.A., Tallahassee, for
Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Jimmy Conner.

No Appearance for Other Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

                        February 2, 2024
               ON MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

     Amanda Talmage petitions for a writ of certiorari, seeking
review of a non-final order allowing Jimmy Conner to file a third
amended complaint against her.* In the litigation between these
parties, this Court previously issued a mandate in this case, 5D20-
2462, on November 22, 2021, affirming the lower tribunal’s
dismissal with prejudice of all claims against Talmage. Talmage
filed the instant petition as a new appellate proceeding, 5D22-
2598, which this Court has determined will be treated as a motion
to enforce the mandate in 5D20-2462.

      Having reviewed the extensive record and considered the
parties’ detailed appellate submissions, the Court grants
Appellant’s motion to enforce mandate. Under the law of the case
doctrine, the trial court erred in allowing Conner the opportunity
to file an amended complaint; this Court previously affirmed the
dismissal with prejudice of all of Conner’s claims against Talmage.
Conner now attempts to assert claims substantially the same as
those raised or that could have been raised previously. Indeed, the
cause of action in Conner’s “third amended complaint (revised)” is
substantially the same as the claim previously dismissed with
prejudice in the trial court and affirmed on appeal by this Court.
Moreover, Conner’s argument in support of further amendment
was previously rejected, thereby making it improper to seek to
circumvent this Court’s decision and mandate.

     It is hereby ordered that Conner’s “third amended complaint
(revised)” is stricken and that the trial court shall abide by this
Court’s previous mandate in 5D20-2462 and disallow any further
amended complaint by Conner against Talmage.

      MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE GRANTED.

    * Review is also sought of the denial of Talmage’s motion for

sanctions against Conner and his attorneys. The denial of
Appellant’s motion for sanctions is not reviewable as a nonfinal
order and will not be addressed.

                                2
MAKAR, LAMBERT, and JAY, JJ., concur.

                _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

                              3