ROBERTO SANCHEZ III v. MICHELLE M. SAENZ

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed May 12, 2021.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
Nos. 3D21-816; 3D21-819
Lower Tribunal No. 19-25665
________________
Roberto Sanchez, III,
Appellant,
vs.
Michelle M. Saenz,
Appellee.
Appeals from non-final orders from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Christina Marie DiRaimondo, Judge.
Annesser Armenteros, PLLC, John W. Annesser and Megan Conkey
Gonzalez, for appellant.
Billbrough & Marks, P.A., and G. Bart Billbrough, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, SCALES and GORDO, JJ.
GORDO, J.
Roberto Sanchez, III, appeals two nonfinal orders, which extend an ex
parte injunction, decline to dissolve said injunction, and continue the final
hearing for permanent injunction. 1 We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App.
P. 9.130(a)(3)B. Sanchez argues Michelle Saenz failed to demonstrate good
cause existed to extend the ex parte injunction and the trial court’s failure to
hold a final hearing on the injunction for nearly a year and a half violates his
due process rights. We agree, reverse and remand.
RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Sanchez and Saenz were married in December of 2017. At the time
of their marriage, they had 3 children together. The children are now 10, 7,
and 5 years old. In May of 2019, Saenz commenced divorce proceedings.
Following events not relevant to our analysis here, Sanchez’s girlfriend
obtained an ex parte injunction against Saenz’s live-in boyfriend. Saenz
sought and obtained an ex parte, temporary injunction for protection against
domestic violence with minor children against Sanchez on November 22,
2019, pursuant to section 741.30(5)(c). The ex parte injunction was set to
expire on December 10, 2019, on which date the trial court was supposed to
hold the final hearing on the petition. That hearing, however, never took
1
Sanchez also filed a petition for writ of mandamus based on the same
underlying facts. Given our decision on the appeal of the nonfinal orders, we
deny his petition as moot.
2
place. Instead, the ex parte injunction has been extended and the final
hearing continued eight times. 2 As a result of the ex parte injunction,
Sanchez has not seen his children in over 17 months.
Eventually, the final hearing was scheduled for March 17–19, 2021.
On March 15, 2021, Sanchez filed an urgent renewed motion to dissolve the
temporary, ex parte injunction. He requested that the trial court either
proceed with the final injunction hearing as scheduled or dissolve the ex
parte injunction while the parties waited for a final hearing date. On March
16th, the court sua sponte continued the final hearing to June of 2021 and
extended the ex parte injunction through June 30, 2021.
On March 18th, the court heard argument on Sanchez’s motion to
dissolve the ex parte injunction. During that hearing, both parties announced
on the record they were ready to proceed to the final injunction hearing. The
court denied Sanchez’s motion.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
Section 741.30, Florida Statutes, provides the process for obtaining a
domestic violence injunction. That includes temporary, ex parte injunctions.
2
We note the trial judge who entered the orders on appeal here did not enter
the prior seven extension and continuation orders. We also note that the
record demonstrates an absence of good cause shown in several of those
previous extensions.
3
See § 741.30(5)(c), Fla. Stat. These ex parte injunctions “shall be effective
for a fixed period not to exceed 15 days.” Id. A full evidentiary hearing “shall
be set for a date no later than the date when the temporary injunction ceases
to be effective.” 3 Id.
The court may, upon a showing of good cause, extend a domestic
violence injunction and continue the corresponding final hearing. Id. These
extensions, however, should be the exception rather than the rule. This
exceptionalism is evident from the statute’s “clear purpose . . . to preserve
the status quo pending a final evidentiary hearing.” Bacchus v. Bacchus,
108 So. 3d 712, 714 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). The statute “does not contemplate
entry of a series of temporary injunctions in lieu of a full hearing on a
permanent injunction.” Id.Although Saenz argued to the trial court that it had “complete and
unfettered jurisdiction to continue the matter[],” there are statutory limitations
on the court’s ability and discretion to continue a final hearing and extend a
temporary, ex parte injunction. The plain language of the statute is
unequivocal that good cause must be shown prior to any extension and
continuance.
3
Section 741.30(4) states that “[u]pon the filing of the petition, the court shall
set a hearing to be held at the earliest possible time.” Id.4
At the hearing on the motion to dissolve the ex parte injunction,
Sanchez argued that the final hearing had been continued and the ex parte
injunction extended for the eighth time, without good cause. He had been
ready to proceed with the final hearing on March 17–19, 2021, and asked for
dissolution of the ex parte injunction in the time awaiting the future final
hearing. The trial court determined that good cause existed to continue the
final hearing and extend the injunction because of outstanding discovery
issues in related proceedings, which it had found to be “inextricably
intertwined” with the final injunction proceedings.
On the record before us, however, we do not find good cause for the
continuance and extension. Outstanding discovery in separate, albeit
related, proceedings does not constitute a basis for a good cause
continuance under these circumstances. Both parties were ready to proceed
with the final injunction hearing. Despite her concession at the hearing,
Saenz now argues on appeal that the trial court had good cause to extend
the ex parte injunction because “the parties, including Sanchez, were not
ready for [the] final hearing due to outstanding discovery issues.” That
assertion is belied by the record.
Sanchez has due process rights regarding the ex parte injunction
issued against him that are being violated by the repeated continuations and
5
extensions. 4 Saenz, too, has a right to present evidence on the allegations
raised in her petition.
Through the filing of this opinion, the ex parte injunction has been in
place for over 520 days, and the final hearing has not occurred. Absent any
evidence of good cause preceding the trial court’s ruling, the trial court erred
in extending the ex parte injunction. Because Saenz “was never given a full
hearing on her request for an injunction and was precluded from presenting
evidence that would support issuance of an injunction,” we remand for the
trial court to expeditiously conduct a final injunction hearing pursuant to
section 741.30, Florida Statutes. Bacchus, 108 So. 3d at 716; see also Miller
v. Miller, 691 So. 2d 528, 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The temporary, ex parte
injunction shall remain in full force and effect pending the expedited hearing.
Reversed and remanded.
4
The basic tenets of procedural due process are notice and an opportunity
to be heard. See, e.g., Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80 (1972) (citation
omitted).
6