Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Sapp v. MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, 1D11-3697 (2012)

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Number: 1D11-3697 Visitors: 17
Judges: Thomas
Filed: Mar. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 82 So. 3d 212 (2012) Valerie SAPP, Appellant, v. MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT and Miami-Dade County Risk Management, Appellees. No. 1D11-3697. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. March 20, 2012. Mark L. Zientz of the Law Offices of Mark L. Zientz, P.A., Miami, for Appellants. R.A. Cuevas, Jr., Miami-Dade County Attorney, and Daron S. Fitch, Assistant County Attorney, Miami, for Appellees. THOMAS, J. REVERSED and REMANDED for the Judge of Compensation Claims to determine, solely
More
82 So. 3d 212 (2012)

Valerie SAPP, Appellant,
v.
MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT and Miami-Dade County Risk Management, Appellees.

No. 1D11-3697.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 20, 2012.

Mark L. Zientz of the Law Offices of Mark L. Zientz, P.A., Miami, for Appellants.

R.A. Cuevas, Jr., Miami-Dade County Attorney, and Daron S. Fitch, Assistant County Attorney, Miami, for Appellees.

THOMAS, J.

REVERSED and REMANDED for the Judge of Compensation Claims to determine, solely on the basis of the record without further receipt of evidence or argument, whether the Employer/Carrier had good cause for the lack of specificity of its initial response to Claimant's fee motion, or for the untimeliness of its amended response to Claimant's fee motion, and for a ruling on fees given that finding as to *213 good cause. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 60Q-6.124(3)(b); Morrison Mgmt. Specialists/Xchanging Integrated Servs. Group, Inc. v. Pierre, 77 So. 3d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (remanding for determination of whether good cause existed for late filing of response to motion for attorney's fees); Lias v. Anderson & Shah Roofing, Inc., 867 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (reversing judge's deviation from limited scope of remand, and again remanding for determination of factual issue "without the taking of further testimony" and entry of ruling resulting from that determination).

DAVIS and RAY, JJ., concur.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer