Opinion
Case No. SC03-2365.
November 30, 2004.
Lower Tribunal No. 2D03-1926.
Because petitioner has failed to show a clear legal right to the reinstatement of his "Appellant's Motion to Strike Appellee's Answer Brief for Noncompliance of Rule 9.210(c) or in Alternative Strike Exhibits as Improper Subject Matter," he is not entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is hereby denied on the merits. See Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2000) (stating that in order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, petitioner must show that he or she has a clear legal right to performance of the requested act, that respondent has an indisputable legal duty to perform that act, and that no other adequate remedy exists).
WELLS, ANSTEAD, QUINCE, CANTERO and BELL, JJ., concur.