IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

APPELLATE DIVISION

MARK R. REINHARDT
APPELLANT,
Case No: 13-000073-AP
UCN522013AP000073XXXXCI
v.
CITY OF DUNEDIN CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
APPELLEE
______________________________________________/

__________________________________________________________________
ON APPEAL FROM
THE CITY OF DUNEDIN CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. DCEB-13-616
__________________________________________________________________
APPELLANT'S OBJECTION TO
APPELLEE'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME
__________________________________________________________________
Mark R. Reinhardt
Appellant, pro se
12 Wilson St.
Amissville, VA 20106
540-937-7977
13-000073-AP

Page 1

APPELLANT'S OBJECTION TO
APPELLEE'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME

Comes now the Appellant, Mark R. Reinhardt, pro se, who submits this Objection
to Appellee's Motion to Enlarge Time and requests that this Honorable Court deny
the motion. In support thereof, Appellant states the following:

1.

Appellant has filed an Appeal of a Final Order by the Code Enforcement

Board of the City of Dunedin. An Initial Brief was timely filed by Appellant in
support of said Appeal. The Reply Brief by Appellee was due on Tuesday,
February 4, 2014. Appellee has failed to file a Reply Brief and instead has filed a
document titled Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Answer
Brief. The Appellant hereby objects to and opposes the Motion to Enlarge Time
for the reasons outlined below.

Appellee Counsel Did Not Confer with Appellant Prior to Motion

2.

In Paragraph 3 of the Motion to Enlarge Time, Appellee states:

The undersigned has attempted to contact the Appellant, proceeding pro se,
but has been unable to make contact.

13-000073-AP

Page 2

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.300(a) provides that:

[a] motion for an extension of time shall . . . contain a certificate that the
movants counsel has consulted opposing counsel and that the movants
counsel is authorized to represent that opposing counsel either has no
objection or will promptly file an objection.

3.

Appellee's motion contains no such certificate. In fact, Appellant was never

contacted concerning the request for relief and only received notice of the filing by
receipt of a copy of said motion via US First Class Mail. Appellant did receive a
single voice mail by Appellee's counsel on Saturday, February 1, 2014, however
that voice mail made no mention of such extenuating circumstances and no
mention that there was any intention to file a Motion for Enlargement of Time.
Appellant is not aware of any attempts of contact other than the single voicemail
that left no details as to the situation. As such Appellant had no knowledge of this
intention prior to its actual filing by Appellee. A transcript of this voicemail is
included as Appendix A to this Objection. As is clearly shown in the transcript,
Appellant would have no reasonable cause to believe that there were any
extenuating circumstances or any intention to file a motion of any sort. The failure
to include the certification required by Rule 9.300(a) is inappropriate and should
provoke a summary denial of Appellees motion.
13-000073-AP

Page 3

4.

Appellee's motion for extension of time is also inappropriate. First, the

motion does not comply with the express requirements of Florida Rule of
Appellate Procedure 9.300, in that there is no certification regarding the position of
opposing counsel. Howard v. Baumer, 519 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)

5.

Motions for extension of time have been and will continue to be summarily

denied by this court when the moving party fails to comply with the requirement of
the rule to contact opposing counsel and to state whether he agrees or objects to an
extension. Mills v. Heenan, 382 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)

6.

Rule 9.300 requires some actual contact with opposing counsel.

Merritt v. Promo Graphics, Inc., 679 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

Appellant Will be Prejudiced by Enlargement of Time

7.

Appellee's assertion in Paragraph 5 that neither party will be prejudiced by

this motion is demonstrably refuted by fact. Appellant is currently in jeopardy of a

fine of $150 per day as per the final order under this appeal. The subsequent lien
places the Appellant at risk of losing real property, and any undue delays will
exacerbate this circumstance. Appellant has a right to a fair and speedy resolution
13-000073-AP

Page 4

of this matter, and it should not be upon the Appellant to bear the burden of
unforeseen events in the office of Appellee's counsel.

WHEREFORE, Appellant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny

Appellee's Motion for Enlargement of Time.

I affirm that the foregoing is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________
Mark R. Reinhardt
Appellant, pro se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by United States
Mail to Appellee at the office of Appellee's counsel: Jay Daigneault, Esq., Offices
of Trask, Metz and Daigneault, LLP, 1001 S. Fort Harrison Dr. Suite 201,
Clearwater, FL, 33756.
______________________
Mark R. Reinhardt
Appellant
13-000073-AP

Page 5

APPENDIX A

Transcript of voice mail message left by Appellee's counsel on February 1, 2014.

Good morning, calling for Mark Reinhardt. Mr. Reinhardt my name is Jay
Daigneault, an attorney with the law firm that represents the City of Dunedin. I
understand that we've got some code enforcement appeals pending, and in the
appeal in case number 13-616 you've filed your initial brief already, and the City's
initial brief is due, I believe on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. If you can
give me a call about that I'd appreciate it. My number is 727-733-0494, again 727733-0494, and again my name is Jay. Thanks.

13-000073-AP

Page 6