METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, APPELLANT,
v.
LAZARO VASQUEZ, APPELLEE
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.
Metropolitan Dade County appealed a workers' compensation judgment but failed to file its notice of appeal within the required thirty-day deadline. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that timely filing requires actual filing with the court during business hours, not merely delivering the notice to a courier service on the deadline date.
The notice of appeal was not timely filed. A party must assure that its notice of appeal is delivered to and actually filed with the court prior to the close of business on the deadline date. Delivering a notice to a courier service on the deadline, even with instructions to deliver it that same day, does not suffice if the courier fails to achieve actual filing before business hours close.
[1] A notice of appeal is not timely filed if it is delivered to the building housing the Judge of Compensation Claims' office after the close of business on the filing deadl…
[2] A party bears the risk of denial of access to file a notice of appeal after hours if they wait until the last available day to file and fail to ensure delivery before the…
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 intelligence“If the Clerk's Office remains open to receive and file the notice and it is in fact filed within the required thirty-day period, as it was here, it is timely.”
The court distinguished Sunshine Dodge by noting that case involved actual filing during business hours; this case does not.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final order was entered by the Judge of Compensation Claims on February 15, 1995, making the appeal deadline March 17, 1995. Metropolitan Dade Count…
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 Filing Deadlines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Metropolitan Dade County seeks review of a final order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) entered and mailed to the parties on February 15, 1995. Time for filing a notice of appeal therefore expired on Friday, March 17, 1995, but appellant’s notice was not filed with the JCC until Monday, March 20, 1995. Appellant was thus directed to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely, and shows in response that it forwarded its notice of appeal to a private courier service on March 17, with directions to deliver same to the JCC on that date.
However, the courier did not arrive at the building housing the JCC’s office until 5:05 p.m. on March 17, and the security guard would not permit her to enter the building or leave the package at the building site.
Accordingly, the courier returned on Monday, March 20, and filed the notice of appeal. Appellant thus argues that because the notice of appeal was delivered for filing within the required period, it should be treated as timely to invoke this court’s jurisdiction.
Pursuant to an order to show cause why the notice of appeal should not be treated as timely, appellee responds by moving to dismiss, arguing that the notice of appeal was not filed with the JCC within the time required, and that as a consequence, the court lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed.
We conclude that the notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed, and that dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is therefore mandated. Appellant’s reliance on Sunshine Dodge, Inc. v. Ketchem, 427 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) is obviously misplaced, since in that case, appellant filed the notice of appeal on the 30th day, albeit after 5:00 p.m. In rejecting appellee’s argument that the notice was nonetheless untimely since it was filed “after the close of the business day,” the court noted that, “[i]f the Clerk’s Office remains open to receive and file the notice and it is in fact filed within the required thirty-day period, as it was here, it is timely.” Id. at 820.
In this case, however, the courier arrived at the building housing the JCC’s office after the close of the business day, and was denied access as a consequence of a reasonable practice based, in part, upon security concerns. A party who waits until the last available day to file its notice of appeal, and who fails to assure that the notice is delivered prior to the close of the business day bears the risk that it will be denied access to file the notice “after hours.” The attempt to deliver a notice of appeal under circumstances such as this is not sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of this court.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
ZEHMER, C.J., and BARFIELD and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gesuclais Brutus v. Mears Transp. Grp. & Bridgefield Ins. Co., 49 So. 3d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…l is filed within thirty days of rendition of order to be reviewed); see also, e.g., Metellus v. State, 900 So. 2d 491, 495 (Fla.2005) (noting jurisdictional rule cannot be altered by court or by agreement of parties); Metro. Dade County v. Vasquez, 659 So. 2d 355, 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (dismissing untimely appeal for lack of jurisdiction). All pending motions are denied as moot. DISMISSED. WOLF, ROBERTS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.…
-
Atagun Serifsoy & Bridgeview Ests., Ltd. v. The City OF Lake Worth & Andy & Nancy Custer, 789 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…00 p.m. will be deemed untimely, while in others it will not. Where there is no after-hours procedure available, an attempt to file on the thirtieth day after the clerk’s office has closed will be deemed untimely. See Metro. Dade County v. Vasquez, 659 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). However, where the clerk has made provisions for after-hours filing, a jurisdictional document will be treated as timely even if it is filed after closing on the thirtieth day. See Sunshine Dodge, Inc. v. Ketchem, 427 So. 2d 819…
-
Nolberto Linares v. A & F Eng'g, Inc., 11 So. 3d 1005 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…to show cause, we DISMISS this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Metellus v. State, 900 So. 2d 491, 495 (Fla.2005) (noting jurisdictional rule cannot be altered by court or by agreement of parties); see also, e.g., Metro. Dade County v. Vasquez, 659 So. 2d 355, 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (dismissing untimely appeal for lack of jurisdiction). HAWKES, C.J., ALLEN, and CLARK, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sunshine Dodge, Inc. v. Ingeborg M. Ketchem, 427 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)