final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
of Original Jurisdiction - Mandamus. Lower Tribunal Nos.
17-340, 17-287, 17-232, 17-385, 15-14478, 16-2542, 15-14370,
Burnett, in proper person.
& Calas, and Cristina Fernandez; Foley & Lardner LLP,
and Brandon Williams, for respondents Starwood Hotels &
Resort Management Company, Inc., and Wyndham Worldwide
Operations, Inc.; Resnick & Louis, P.C., and Robert
Squire, for respondent J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc.; Wicker,
Smith, O'Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A., and Brandon J.
Hechtman, for respondent Office Depot, Inc.; Quintairos,
Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., and Reginald Clyne, for
respondent Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
LAGOA, LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ.
these consolidated petitions, Shane Burnett seeks writs of
mandamus from this Court compelling the Appellate Division of
the Eleventh Judicial Circuit (the "Appellate
Division") to exercise jurisdiction over, or transfer to
the appropriate court, petitions for writs of mandamus
arising in four cases that originated in the Civil Division
of Miami-Dade County Court. For the reasons set forth below,
we dismiss in part, grant in part, and deny in part.
Burnett filed the following four cases in Miami-Dade County
Court: (i). Burnett v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts
Management Co., No. 15-14478-SP-25, alleging false
policies, procedures, practices and impractical monitoring;
(ii). Burnett v. J.C. Penny Corp., No.
16-2542-SP-25, alleging false return policies, procedures,
practices and impractical monitoring; (iii). Burnett v.
Office Depot, Inc., No. 15-14370-SP-25; and, (iv).
Burnett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 16-4929-SP-25,
alleging unfair acts or practices, procedures and false
this Court has previously entered orders disposing of the
petitions filed in the Office Depot and J.C.
Penny cases. See Burnett v. Office Depot, Inc.,
No. 3D17-1305 (Fla. 3d DCA June 20, 2017) (order transferring
cause to the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit
for Miami-Dade County, Florida); Burnett v. J.C. Penney
Corp., No. 3D17-1988 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 14, 2017),
reh'g denied, (Dec. 22, 2017) (order denying
petition for certiorari). Thus, the instant petitions filed
in both of those cases are dismissed.
to the two remaining petitions, the Appellate Division
entered an order in the Wal-Mart case striking Mr.
Burnett's petition pursuant to Administrative Order
82-22. In the Starwood case, the Appellate Division
entered an order transferring Mr. Burnett's case to the
Circuit Civil Division on the grounds that the Appellate
Division lacked jurisdiction. Mr. Burnett seeks orders from
this Court compelling the Appellate Division to either
exercise jurisdiction over his petitions or, in the
alternative, transfer them to the appropriate division of the
court. In support of this position, he argues Administrative
Order 82-22 is invalid because it limits judicial discretion,
is inconsistent with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure
9.040(b), and was not promulgated by the Florida Supreme
Appellate Division of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and
for Miami-Dade County was established in 1982 pursuant to
Local Rule R-3-1, "Establishment and Defining
Jurisdiction of the Appellate Division of the Circuit
Court." Local Rule R-3-1 was approved by the Florida
Supreme Court on December 14, 1982 and assigned to the
Appellate Division responsibility for the disposition of
appeals from Miami-Dade County Courts, petitions for writs of
certiorari seeking review of decisions of "any public
body, city or county commission or council, administrative
board or agency, or the County Court." Local Rule R-3-1
further provided that cases in the Appellate Division would
be heard by panels of three judges randomly selected.
later, on December 21, 1981, Administrative Order 82-22 was
promulgated as approved by the Florida Supreme Court. It
requires writs of prohibition, mandamus and habeas corpus to
be filed as original actions in the respective Circuit Court
Division corresponding to the type of action from which it
WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Florida has approved an
amendment to the Local Rule for the Appellate Division of the
Circuit Court concerning jurisdiction of said Division, and
WHEREAS said amendment has removed from the jurisdiction of
the Appellate Division those petitions for Writs of
Prohibition and Mandamus directed to the County Court or
judges thereof, or to any public body or agency; and ...