CITY OF SARASOTA, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
AFSCME COUNCIL '79 AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a motion to reinstate an automatic stay cannot be granted without a record of the proceedings below to demonstrate abuse of discretion.
[1] A party seeking review of an order vacating an automatic stay must provide the appellate court with a record of the proceedings below, including the final order, pleading…
[2] An appellate court cannot review a lower tribunal's decision regarding a stay in a vacuum and requires an adequate record to determine if discretion was abused.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Sarasota appealed an order certifying a collective bargaining unit, which automatically triggered a stay. The Public Employees Relations C…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Automatic Stay Pending Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The City of Sarasota files a motion to reinstate the automatic stay provision of Rule 9.310(b)(2), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because the city has failed to present this court with a record of the proceedings below, we are unable to determine if the lower tribunal abused its discretion and we therefore deny the motion.
The city has taken an appeal from a final order of the Public Employees Relations Commission, which certified AFSCME Council 79 as a collective bargaining unit. Because the city is a public body as contemplated by Rule 9.310(b)(2), the filing of the notice of appeal automatically operates as a stay pending appeal. City of Jacksonville Beach v. Public Employees Relations Commission, 359 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
AFSCME filed a motion to set aside the automatic stay, which was granted by the lower tribunal. The city now moves for review of the order vacating the stay, as allowed by Rule 9.310(f). The motion does not attach an appendix and this court has not yet received the record on appeal. Our review of an order relating to a stay cannot be made in a vacuum. At a minimum, the party seeking review should provide this court with a copy of the final order, any pleadings regarding the stay and the lower tribunal’s order on the stay. Generally, the lower tribunal has broad discretion in the matter of a stay. Neale v. Aycock, 340 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 351 So. 2d 405 (Fla.1977). By failing to provide this court with a record of the proceedings below, the city has failed to demonstrate that the lower tribunal abused its discretion when it vacated the automatic stay. Cf. Aleshire v. Ackerman, 418 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (petition for writ of certiorari denied where petition did not attach an appendix with a copy of the order sought to be reviewed).
The motion to reinstate automatic stay is denied without prejudice to serve an amended motion with a proper appendix.
JOANOS, WIGGINTON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Palm BAY v. State, 588 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…also Fla.Admin.Code Rule 18-5.210. Thus, the grant or denial of a continuance in administrative proceedings is a discretionary matter, similar to the discretion to grant or deny a stay in judicial proceedings. City of Sarasota v. AFSCME Council, 79, 563 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Neale v. Aycock, 340 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 351 So. 2d 405 (Fla.1977). A stay is appropriate where two cases are pending between the same parties, involving the same set of facts, and directed to the same resul…
-
Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Clear Channel Metroplex, Inc., 117 So. 3d 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…v. Estate of Bealer, 890 So. 2d 508, 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The idea is that the court most familiar with the controversy is in the best posture to determine the appropriateness and conditions of a stay. See City of Sarasota v. AFSCME Council ’79, 563 So. 2d 830, 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (“Generally, the lower tribunal has broad discretion in the matter of a stay.”); see also Pabian v. Pabian, 469 So. 2d 189, 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (“[T]he trial court has considerable latitude in controlling the circumstanc…
Authorities Cited
- Neale v. Aycock, 340 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- City OF Jacksonville Beach v. The Pub. Emps. Relations Comm'n & Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 359 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Aleshire v. Ackerman, 418 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)