From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ciporkin v. High Tech Glass, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
May 16, 2012
90 So. 3d 283 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

Opinion

Nos. 2D11–6100 2D12–589.

2012-05-16

George P. CIPORKIN, M.D., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. HIGH TECH GLASS, INC., Et Al, Appellee/Respondent(s).


BY ORDER OF THE COURT.

The four appellees' motions to dismiss appeal 2D11–6100 are granted. Appeal 2D11–6100 is dismissed. See Kennedy v. Tiki Inv. Co., 471 So.2d 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

Appellee Burkett Stucco, Inc.'s, motion for attorney's fees filed in appeal 2D11–6100 is denied.

Appellee Mark 1 Contracting, Inc.'s, motion for sanctions filed in appeal 2D11–6100 is denied.

The appellant's motion to consolidate appeal 2D11–6100 with appeal 2D12–589 is denied as moot.

The appellant's motion to supplement the record filed in appeal 2D11–6100 is denied as moot.

The appellant's motion for extension of time filed in appeal 2D11–6100 is denied as moot.

WALLACE, KHOUZAM, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Ciporkin v. High Tech Glass, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
May 16, 2012
90 So. 3d 283 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)
Case details for

Ciporkin v. High Tech Glass, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:George P. CIPORKIN, M.D., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. HIGH TECH GLASS…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Date published: May 16, 2012

Citations

90 So. 3d 283 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)