ROBERT W. MEYER, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTH SEAS NORTHWEST CONDOMINIUM APARTMENTS OF MARCO ISLAND, INC., CELIA DEIFIK, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND ERIC J. VASQUEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, 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.
Robert W. Meyer appeals the dismissal with prejudice of his complaint against Celia Deifik and others. The trial court dismissed the complaint based on a prior order prohibiting Meyer from filing pro se pleadings against the condominium and related parties, along with res judicata, collateral estoppel, and statute of limitations defenses. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal.
The trial court properly dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Meyer did not establish that the trial court erred in entering the order of dismissal, and the dismissal is affirmed.
[1] A complaint may be dismissed with prejudice if it violates a prior court order prohibiting a pro se litigant from filing pleadings against specific parties.
[2] A trial court's dismissal of a complaint with prejudice will be affirmed if the record does not establish that the court erred.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude that Mr. Meyer has not established that the trial court erred in entering its order of dismissal.”
Establishes the standard of review and the court's ultimate conclusion that the trial court did not err.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMeyer, acting pro se, filed a complaint against Deifik and others. A prior 2001 circuit court order had prohibited Meyer from filing pleadings as a pr…
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 Pro Se Litigant Restrictions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Robert W. Meyer appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his complaint with prejudice in favor of Celia Deifik. We affirm.
Acting pro se, Mr. Meyer filed a complaint and alleged several causes of action against Ms. Deifik and others.1 The defendants filed motions to dismiss with prejudice, asserting the following: (1) in earlier litigation, an order had been entered prohibiting Mr. Meyer from filing pleadings as a pro se litigant against South Seas Northwest Condominium Apartments of Marco Island, Inc., its agents and representatives, and that the current litigation violated that order; (2) Mr. Meyer’s claims are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel; (3) on its face, the complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations; and (4) the complaint fails to state a cause of action.
The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude that Mr. Meyer has not established that the trial court erred in entering its order of dismissal. Accordingly, we affirm the order of dismissal.2
Affirmed.
CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ., and LEVY, DAVID L., Associate Senior Judge, Concur. . Although the style of this appeal lists three appellees, all of whom filed briefs, the order of dismissal that is before us is in favor of Ms. Deifik alone. A separate appeal is pending from a second order of dismissal that the trial court entered in favor of South Seas and Mr. Vasquez.
. In this appeal, Mr. Meyer argues that a circuit court order that had been entered in 2001 is invalid or should be overturned. That order prohibits him from filing pleadings as a pro se litigant against South Seas Northwest Condominium Apartments, its agents and representatives. The trial court noted that Mr. Meyer’s complaint falls within the prohibition of the 2001 order, and it does not appear from our record that Mr. Meyer filed with the trial court any appropriate request for relief from that order.