October 2025 — Miami, Florida

Bernhard Law Firm is pleased to announce a significant appellate victory before the Florida Supreme Court, which this week denied appellants’ motion for relief from dismissal in a certified conflict appeal arising from the Sixth District Court of Appeal. (Florida Bar disclaimer: results may not be typical. You may not have as beneficial a result, or same or similar results). See Florida Supreme Court case number SC2025-1318, Melrose Ventures, LLC, v. Uptempo Marketing Corp. The decision cements Bernhard Law Firm’s jurisdictional arguments and confirms the strict procedural rules governing appellate filings in Florida’s highest court. If you have questions about Florida Supreme Court appeals, please contact Bernhard Law Firm at www.bernhardlawfirm.com, 786-871-3349, abernhard@bernhardlawfirm.com.

[KEEP READING BELOW IMAGE]

Background

The underlying appeals began when the trial court granted Bernhard Law Firm’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims based on a mandatory forum selection clause requiring litigation in Ontario, Canada. On July 25, 2025, the Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed that dismissal in an eight-page written opinion and certified conflict for potential review by the Florida Supreme Court.

Appellants sought to invoke the Florida Supreme Court’s discretionary conflict jurisdiction under Article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.120. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding as appellants’ jurisdictional filings were three days late and therefore time-barred.

Bernhard Law Firm’s Argument to the Florida Supreme Court

In its briefing, Bernhard Law Firm emphasized that the district court’s opinion—not the later clerk’s mandate—is the “order to be reviewed” under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The firm explained that appellants had misapplied Rule 9.020, relying on subsection (h) (dealing with trial court orders) instead of subsection (i) (governing appellate orders and opinions).

As the firm’s response summarized:

“The clerk of court’s mandate is not ‘the order to be reviewed’ under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.120(b). The order to be reviewed was the July 25, 2025 appellate opinion, which was rendered when docketed by the clerk of the court. Petitioners rely on the wrong subsection of Rule 9.020 and fail to cite any on-point authority to support their unique view that a mandate tolls the time to appeal.”

Under Rule 9.120(b), the Supreme Court’s discretionary jurisdiction “must be invoked by filing a notice with the clerk of the district court of appeal within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.” Rule 9.020(i) clarifies that rendition of an appellate opinion occurs “when docketed by the clerk of the court.” Thus, Bernhard Law Firm demonstrated that appellants’ jurisdictional notice was due by August 25, 2025—thirty days after the July 25 opinion. Because appellants miscalculated from the administrative mandate instead of the appellate opinion, their filing was untimely by three days and therefore jurisdictionally defective.

Authorities Cited by Bernhard Law Firm

Bernhard Law Firm supported its position with decades of precedent confirming that jurisdictional time limits in Florida’s appellate rules are mandatory and cannot be extended:

• Mallet v. State, 280 So. 3d 1091, 1092 (Fla. 2019): reaffirming that the Florida Supreme Court is a “court of limited jurisdiction.”
• Dupree v. Elleman, 139 Fla. 809, 813–14 (Fla. 1939): “The controlling statute providing for appeals mandatorily requires such an appeal to be taken within thirty days … [and] the courts are given no authority to extend the return day of appeals as fixed by statute.”
• Kalway v. Singletary, 708 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1998): parties seeking appellate review “must comply with the general filing requirements—including time restrictions—set forth in this Court’s rules.”
• Jamuna Petroleum, Inc. v. Conklin, 391 So. 3d 627, 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024): dismissing appeal filed more than thirty days after rendition.
• Joseph v. State, 157 So. 3d 546, 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015): “Because the notice of appeal was received one day after the 30-day deadline, we do not have jurisdiction.”
• Coca-Cola Foods v. Cordero, 589 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991): “It is well settled that to be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed in the appropriate court within the appropriate time period.”

Bernhard Law Firm also distinguished the authorities relied on by appellants—including Dodgen v. Grijalva, VME Group Int’l, LLC v. Grand Condo. Ass’n, Inc., and Romero v. State—explaining that none involved discretionary Supreme Court jurisdiction or extended the 30-day filing window.

No Right to Belated Appeal in Civil Cases

In rejecting the appellants’ attempt to reopen their case through a motion for relief, Bernhard Law Firm further underscored the long-standing rule that there is no right to a belated appeal in civil matters, citing Scalf v. Singletary, 589 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991):

“There is no right to a belated appeal in civil cases at all, and certainly not when the failure to timely appeal is attributable to counsel.”

This principle, the firm explained, applies squarely where appellants simply miscalculated a clear jurisdictional deadline.

Florida Supreme Court Agrees — Appeal Remains Dismissed

After full consideration, the Florida Supreme Court agreed with Bernhard Law Firm’s jurisdictional analysis and denied the appellants’ motion for relief, leaving the earlier dismissal intact. The Court’s ruling confirms that failure to comply with the jurisdictional 30-day deadline to seek discretionary review is fatal to appellate jurisdiction, and that reliance on the issuance of the clerk’s mandate cannot revive an untimely filing.

As Bernhard Law Firm noted in its filing:

“Where a party fails to timely invoke this Court’s jurisdiction within thirty days of rendition of the appellate opinion, the Court cannot acquire jurisdiction to engage in discretionary review. The clerk’s mandate is an administrative document—it is not a decision ‘to be reviewed’ under Rule 9.120(b).”

Result and Firm Commentary

The Florida Supreme Court’s order brings the appellate proceedings to a close, confirming the dismissal of the appeal with finality.

“We are very pleased with the Court’s ruling,” said Andrew Bernhard, managing partner of Bernhard Law Firm. “This decision reaffirms that appellate deadlines in Florida are jurisdictional, not discretionary. The Court correctly held that litigants must strictly comply with the procedural rules if they wish to invoke the Supreme Court’s limited jurisdiction.”

Bernhard added, “Our clients were entitled to finality after years of litigation, and we’re proud to have achieved that result at Florida’s highest court.”

About Bernhard Law Firm

Bernhard Law Firm represents individuals and businesses in complex commercial litigation and appellate matters throughout Florida. The firm regularly handles appeals in state and federal courts, including the Florida Supreme Court and all district courts of appeal. For more information about Bernhard Law Firm’s appellate practice or recent case results, visit BernhardLawFirm.com or contact info@bernhardlawfirm.com.