Court Opinion

ID: 9408306
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-12 14:05:15.99838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:43.204245
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                                State of Florida

                           Opinion filed July 12, 2023.
        Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                             ________________

                              No. 3D22-2059
                        Lower Tribunal No. 22-16 AP
                           ________________

                            46 NW 17 CT LLC,
                                  Petitioner,

                                      vs.

                               City of Miami,
                                 Respondent.

     On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Appellate Division, Daryl E. Trawick, Lisa S. Walsh, and Maria de
Jesus Santovenia, Judges.

       Michael Garcia, PA., and Michael Garcia (Fort Lauderdale), for
petitioner.

     Victoria Méndez, City Attorney, and Bryan E. Capdevila and Eric J.
Eves, Assistant City Attorneys, for respondent.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.

     GORDO, J.
       In this petition for a second-tier writ of certiorari, Petitioner 1 seeks to

quash the circuit court appellate division’s per curiam affirmance of a final

administrative order by the City of Miami’s Unsafe Structures Panel requiring

the demolition of the Petitioner’s property. Because the circuit court’s per

curiam affirmance was not a violation of a clearly established principle of law

resulting in a miscarriage of justice so as to permit our review by second-tier

certiorari, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to grant relief. See Gables

Ins. Recovery, Inc. v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 159 So. 3d 863, 865 (Fla.

3d DCA 2014) (“[W]e see nothing in the record to indicate that the appellate

division failed to afford GIR due process or that it applied the incorrect law.

Petition dismissed.”); AbouElSeoud v. AIM Recovery Servs., Inc., 299 So.

3d 428, 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“As Ms. AboulElSeoud has failed to show

that (1) procedural due process was not afforded by the circuit court

appellate division, and (2) the court departed from the essential requirements

of law, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to grant relief.”); State Farm

Auto. Ins. Co. v. CC Chiropractic, LLC, 245 So. 3d 755, 758–59 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2018) (“[T]he circuit court’s per curiam affirmance was not a violation

of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice

so as to permit our review by second-tier certiorari.”); Somerset Acad., Inc.

1
    46 NW 17 CT LLC.

                                         2
v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 314 So. 3d 597, 599 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2020) (“[A] circuit court order that . . . provides a result without a written

opinion and therefore cannot act as precedent in future cases, will generally

not merit certiorari review in the district court, even if the district court might

disagree with the result.” (quoting Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles

v. Alliston, 813 So. 2d 141, 145 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002))).

                                        3