SC07-261 – Paul J. Barco v. School Board of Pinellas County

State: Florida

Docket No: SC07-261

Case Date: 01/10/2008

Preview:Supreme Court of Florida
____________ No. SC07-261 ____________ PAUL J. BARCO, Petitioner, vs. SCHOOL BOARD OF PINELLAS COUNTY, Respondent. [February 7, 2008] PARIENTE, J. Paul Barco seeks review of the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in Barco v. School Board of Pinellas County, 946 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), in which the court certified conflict with the decisions of the other district courts of appeal in Martin Daytona Corp. v. Strickland Construction Services, 941 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), Byrne-Henry v. Hertz Corp., 927 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA), review dismissed, 945 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 2006), Swift v. Wilcox, 924 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), review denied, 949 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 2007), and Norris v. Treadwell, 907 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), review dismissed, 934 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 2006). The conflict issue involves the proper

interpretation of the time deadlines governing the service of motions for costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 as it existed in 2004.1 All of the district courts of appeal, except the Second District, have construed the rule as setting an outside deadline in which the motion for costs or fees is untimely only if served more than thirty days after the filing of the judgment. The Second District, however, has held that the rule creates a narrow window for serving the motion that begins only after the filing of the judgment and closes thirty days later. We have jurisdiction. See art. V,

Download SC07-261 – Paul J. Barco v. School Board of Pinellas County.pdf