Petition for Writ of Mandamus: APPELLATE PROCEDURE – Appealability/Improper Relief— Regardless that the Petitioner may try to remedy a future similar problem with a method that the Development Director rejected, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus to compel the Director to issue an after-the-fact permit is moot as the Petitioner remedied the problem and the Director issued the permit.  Petition dismissed.  Solomon v. State, No. 12-000036AP-88B (Fla. 6th Cir. App. Ct. February 8, 2013). 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

APPELLATE DIVISION

 

David Solomon,

            Petitioner,

vs.                                                                                                 Ref. No. 12000036AP-88B

                                                                                                     UCN522012AP000036XXXXCV

State of Florida,

            Respondent.

____________________________________________/

 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION AS MOOT

 

            THIS CAUSE is before the Court on a Petition Seeking a Writ of Mandamus compelling the Pinellas County Planning and Development Director to issue an after the fact permit.  The Planning and Development Department refused to issue the permit at issue because of a recessed junction box which reduced the wall’s 1-hour fire rating.  The Department refused to accept Petitioner’s attempt to return the wall’s 1-hour fire rating to an acceptable level by using fire rated mortar instead of fixing the recessed junction box.  

            Since the filing of this Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Petitioner has remedied the problem of the recessed junction box, and the Planning and Development Department issued the permit that was the subject of this Petition.  Accordingly, the Court finds that the underlying Petition has become moot such that the above-styled petition should be dismissed.  “A case is ‘moot’ when it presents no actual controversy or when the issues have ceased to exist.”  Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla. 1992).  Petitioner argues that the Petition is not moot because in the future he may wish to use the same mortar that the Planning and Development refused to accept in this case.  However, it is not the function of a judicial tribunal to “give opinions on moot questions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue.” Montgomery v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 468 So. 2d 1014, 1016-1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). See Merkle v. Guardianship of Jacoby, 912 So.2d 595, 599-600 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (explaining that an appellate court will dismiss a case if the issues raised in it have become moot).

Therefore, it is,

            ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the above-styled petition is dismissed. 

            DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida this ________ day of ­­­­_________ 2013.

 

Original order entered on February 8, 2013, by Circuit Judges Amy M. Williams, Peter Ramsberger, and Pamela A. M. Campbell.

 

 

Copy furnished to:

 

DAVID SOLOMON

880 MANDALAY AVE

#N911

CLEARWATER, FL 33767

 

GABE PARRA

100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVE

CLEARWATER, FL 33756

 

OFFICE OF STATE ATTORNEY

14250 49TH STREET NORTH

CLEARWATER, FL 33762

 

HON. PATRICK K. CADDELL

14250 49TH STREET NORTH

CLEARWATER, FL 33762