Carmona v. WAL-MART STORES, EAST, LP
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18472
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Carmona and Carmona, pro se, filed a civil action against Wal-Mart after a criminal case against Mrs. Carmona was dismissed.
- Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment on all five claims on October 13, 2010 and served notice of a hearing for January 10, 2011.
- At the hearing, Wal-Mart focused on probable cause and introduced an affidavit from Mrs. Carmona; Carmonas argued misclassification of paid items and lack of opposition evidence.
- Mr. Carmona spoke for both plaintiffs, conceded probable cause, and the court interrupted to discuss evidentiary implications but allowed rebuttal from each side.
- The judge granted summary judgment in Wal-Mart’s favor after all arguments, and the Carmonas later sought relief from judgment under Rule 1.540, which was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice and opportunity to be heard were constitutionally sufficient. | Carmona contends due process was violated by insufficient process. | Wal-Mart asserts proper notice and fair hearing. | No due process violation; notice and hearing were sufficient. |
| Whether interruption of Mr. Carmona at the hearing deprived meaningful opportunity to be heard. | Carmona claims disruption prevented a meaningful presentation. | Wal-Mart argues the hearing was fair and orderly with ample opportunity to argue. | No; hearing was fair and parties had multiple chances to respond. |
| Whether denial of relief from judgment for lack of due process was an abuse of discretion. | Carmona asserts procedural due process rights were violated at summary judgment. | Wal-Mart contends no abuse and that proper procedure was followed. | No abuse; Rule 1.540(b) relief denied appropriately. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep't of Law Enforcement v. Real Prop., 588 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1991) (procedural due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Vollmer v. Key Dev. Props., Inc., 966 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
- Cnty. of Pasco v. Riehl, 635 So.2d 17 (Fla. 1994) (notice must convey required information and afford reasonable time)
- N.C. v. Anderson, 882 So.2d 990 (Fla. 2004) (state and federal due process protections align)
- Carillon Cmty. Residential v. Seminole Cnty., 45 So.3d 7 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (procedural due process requires only an essentially fair proceeding)
- Hadley v. Dep't of Admin., 411 So.2d 184 (Fla. 1982) (standard for due process in administrative actions)
- Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 (U.S. 1997) (due process in summary proceedings can be compatible with fairness)