## Facts

- Oceania Joint Venture (Oceania) sought circuit-court appellate review of an adverse zoning decision issued by the Dade County Board of County Commissioners (the Board), an administrative agency.
- Oceania filed a timely zoning appeal in the Appellate Division of the Dade County Circuit Court (the circuit court’s appellate division), but it named only private parties—Ocean View of Miami, Ltd. and related respondents (collectively, OVM)—as appellees and did not name the Board.
- OVM moved to dismiss the circuit-court appeal on the ground that the Board was an indispensable party to the zoning appeal.
- The circuit court’s appellate division granted the motion to dismiss after review by a single circuit judge, even though Eleventh Judicial Circuit Local Rule 1 provided that appeals from administrative-agency orders must be heard by a three-judge panel.
- Oceania moved for rehearing and sought to amend its notice of appeal; those efforts were denied.
- Oceania filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Third District Court of Appeal (Third DCA) seeking review of the dismissal order, but it argued only that the Board was not indispensable and did not raise the local-rule (one-judge vs. three-judge panel) issue. The Third DCA denied the petition without opinion.
- Oceania sought certiorari review in the Florida Supreme Court, which denied relief for lack of jurisdiction.
- Oceania then filed a motion in the circuit court’s appellate division to reinstate its zoning appeal, raising for the first time the argument that the prior dismissal order was void because it was entered by only one judge rather than a three-judge panel under Local Rule 1.
- A three-judge panel of the circuit court’s appellate division denied the reinstatement motion as untimely.
- Oceania filed the present (second) petition for writ of certiorari in the Third DCA, challenging the denial of reinstatement and again claiming the prior one-judge dismissal was void.

## Issues

1. Whether the circuit court appellate division’s dismissal order was void because it was entered by a single judge, contrary to a local rule requiring a three-judge panel for administrative appeals.
2. Whether the circuit court appellate division departed from the essential requirements of law, causing a miscarriage of justice, by denying Oceania’s motion to reinstate the appeal as untimely.

## Decision

- The Third DCA denied the petition for writ of certiorari.
- The court rejected Oceania’s claim that the one-judge dismissal order was void based on the local three-judge-panel requirement.
- The court held that the appellate division did not depart from the essential requirements of law in treating Oceania’s reinstatement request as untimely, given the delayed and piecemeal way the local-rule argument was raised after earlier review efforts had ended.

## Legal Principles

- Second-tier certiorari review of a circuit court acting in its appellate capacity is narrow; relief requires a departure from the essential requirements of law that results in a miscarriage of justice.
- A violation of a local rule directing that certain matters be decided by a multi-judge appellate panel is generally not a defect in subject-matter jurisdiction and does not automatically render the resulting order void.
- A party may waive a procedural objection by failing to raise it at the first reasonable opportunity, including during the initial request for appellate review.
- Courts may deny efforts to reopen or reinstate appellate proceedings as untimely when the litigant raises a new procedural theory only after the case has proceeded through rehearing and prior certiorari review.

## Conclusion

The Third DCA denied Oceania’s second-tier certiorari petition because the alleged local-rule error (a one-judge dismissal where a three-judge panel was contemplated) did not make the dismissal order void, and the circuit court appellate division acted within the limited bounds of law governing appellate proceedings when it denied Oceania’s late motion to reinstate the zoning appeal as untimely.


Oceania Joint Venture v. Ocean View of Miami, Ltd., 707 So. 2d 917 (1998)