On Motion to Enforce Mandate
Amanda Talmage petitions for a writ of certiorari, seeking review of a non-final order allowing Jimmy Conner to file a third amended complaint against her.
*
In the litigation between these parties, this Court previously issued a mandate in this case, 5D20-2462, on November 22, 2021, affirming the lower tribunals dismissal with prejudice of all claims against Talmage. Talmage filed the instant petition as a new appellate proceeding, 5D22-2598, which this Court has determined will be treated as a motion to enforce the mandate in 5D20-2462.
Having reviewed the extensive record and considered the parties’ detailed appellate submissions, the Court grants Appellants motion to enforce mandate. Under the law of the case doctrine, the trial court erred in allowing Conner the opportunity to file an amended complaint; this Court previously affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of all of Conners claims against Talmage. Conner now attempts to assert claims substantially the same as those raised or that could have been raised previously. Indeed, the cause of action in Conners “third amended complaint (revised)” is substantially the same as the claim previously dismissed with prejudice in the trial court and affirmed on appeal by this Court. Moreover, Conners argument in support of further amendment was previously rejected, thereby making it improper to seek to circumvent this Courts decision and mandate.
It is hereby ordered that Conners “third amended complaint (revised)” is stricken and that the trial court shall abide by this Courts previous mandate in 5D20-2462 and disallow any further amended complaint by Conner against Talmage.
Motion to Enforce Mandate Granted.
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE
. Review is also sought of the denial of Talmages motion for sanctions against Conner and his attorneys. The denial of Appellants motion for sanctions is not reviewable as a nonfinal order and will not be addressed.
Per Curiam.
Makar, Lambert, and Jay, JJ., concur.