GUSTAVO ORTIZ, ETC.
v.
PERFORMANCE TRANSPORTATION, LLC, ET AL.

Fla. 3d DCA | 2025-08-27
No. 2024-1541
Sanchez-Llorens, J., Emas, J., Lindsey, J., Gordo, J.
2025 FL 7382 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2025)

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.

Holding

A trial court's denial of a motion for new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion and will not be disturbed unless the decision fails the reasonableness test.

Headnotes

[1] A trial court's discretionary ruling on a motion for new trial is reviewed under the abuse-of-discretion standard, and the presumption is that the trial court exercised i…

Previewing 1 of 1 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
Key Quotes

“A motion for a new trial is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and the presumption is that it exercised that discretion properly. And the general rule is that unless it clearly appears that the trial court abused its discretion, the action of the trial court will not be disturbed by the appellate court.”

Standard for reviewing trial court's discretionary rulings on motions for new trial
Facts & Procedural History

Gustavo Ortiz appealed from a circuit court decision in Miami-Dade County regarding a motion for new trial in a case against Performance Transportatio…

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.

Topics
Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review) Abuse Of Discretion Standard Of Review

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review) cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
Gordo

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed August 27, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-1541 Lower Tribunal No. 22-3475-CA 01 ________________

Gustavo Ortiz, etc., Appellant,

vs.

Performance Transportation, LLC., et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Migna Sanchez-Llorens, Judge.

Eaton & Wolk, PL, Douglas F. Eaton and Daniel R. Schwartz, for appellant.

Kula & Associates, P.A., Elliot B. Kula and W. Aaron Daniel, for appellees.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Footnotes
2 Affirmed. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Manasse, 707 So. 2d 1110, 1111 (Fla. 1998) (“When a motion for new trial is made it is directed to the sound, broad discretion of the trial judge, who because of his contact with the trial and his observation of the behavior of those upon whose testimony the finding of fact must be based is better positioned than any other one person fully to comprehend the processes by which the ultimate decision of the triers of fact, the jurors, is reached . . . A motion for a new trial is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and the presumption is that it exercised that discretion properly. And the general rule is that unless it clearly appears that the trial court abused its discretion, the action of the trial court will not be disturbed by the appellate court.”) (citations omitted); Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Armand, 403 So. 3d 1060, 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (“In reviewing a true discretionary act, the appellate court must fully recognize the superior vantage point of the trial judge and should apply the ‘reasonableness’ test to determine whether the trial judge abused his discretion. If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion. The discretionary ruling of the trial judge should be disturbed only when his decision fails to satisfy this test of
3 reasonableness.” (quoting Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980))).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw