VIFRANCIS LOPEZ, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
State Farm Florida Insurance Company moved to strike Lopez's answer brief for alleged untimely filing. The court denied the motion, finding the brief was timely served under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, and criticized State Farm's counsel for filing a meritless motion and failing to withdraw it when its deficiencies became apparent.
The answer brief was timely served. When applying Rules 9.210(f), 9.420(e), and 9.420(f) together, the twenty-day deadline for Lopez's answer brief was properly extended by five days for mail service and further extended to the next work day because the deadline fell on a weekend.
[1] A party is entitled to five additional days to serve an answer brief when the opposing party serves its initial brief by mail.
[2] When a deadline for serving a brief falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the deadline is extended to the next business day.
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“Pursuant to rule 9.210(f), Lopez's answer brief was due to be served within twenty days after State Farm served its initial brief. Rule 9.420(e) provides that five days shall be added to the prescribed time if service of the initial brief is made by mail. Also, rule 9.420(f) provides that, if a deadline falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the deadline is extended to the next work day. Applying these rules, the answer brief was timely served.”
The court's application of the procedural rules showing Lopez's brief complied with all applicable requirements.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLopez filed an answer brief in response to State Farm's initial brief. State Farm moved to strike the answer brief, claiming it was filed ten days bey…
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 Professional Responsibility Of Attorneys cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER BRIEF
State Farm Florida Insurance Company moved to strike the answer brief filed by Vifrancis Lopez, alleging that the brief was filed ten days beyond the time limit mandated by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Determining that the answer brief was timely served, we deny the motion to strike. We write, however, to address the unnecessary burden placed upon both Lopez and this court by counsel for State Farm’s unprofessionalism in filing a meritless motion and, more significantly, in failing to withdraw such motion when its lack of merit was made clear.
Pursuant to rule 9.210(f), Lopez’s answer brief was due to be served within twenty days after State Farm served its initial brief. Rule 9.420(e) provides that five days shall be added to the prescribed time if service of the initial brief is made by mail. Also, rule 9.420(f) provides that, if a deadline falls.on a Saturday or Sunday, the deadline is extended to the next work day. Applying these rules, the answer brief was timely served.
Nevertheless, counsel for State Farm filed a motion to strike Lopez’s answer brief. Lopez filed a response, detailing each of the rules referenced above and clearly establishing that her brief was timely served. Even then, State Farm’s counsel did not withdraw her motion to strike. As a result, this court was required to expend time and effort addressing it. A staff attorney of the court was required to review the motion and prepare a summary and recommendation for a panel of the court. Then, the panel was required to spend time reviewing and ruling upon the motion, and then preparing an order denying the motion.
Attorneys handling appeals in our court have a professional responsibility to have a working knowledge of the Rules of Appellate Procedure and to act in a way that does not force the opposing party or the court to expend time and effort on baseless matters. In addition to not filing a merit-less motion, an attorney also has a professional responsibility to withdraw a motion when its lack of merit is made clear.
MOTION DENIED.
PALMER and JACOBUS, JJ., and MONACO, D.A., Senior Judge, concur.