RECEIVED, 12/12/2017 11:33:29 PM, Clerk, Supreme Court Filing # 65312367 E-Filed 12/12/2017 11:28:53 PM

of notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and the provision of non-hearsay

evidence before judgment is rendered against someone. As a result, this proceeding

seeking mandamus directing the court of appeal to issue a written decision is of great

public importance.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

On November 22, 2017, the Second District Court of Appeal summarily denied the

Petition for Writ of Certiorari disposing of this appeal by issuing a per curiam affirmance.

The PCA entered by the Second District Court of Appeal improperly serves as a denial of

Petitioner's right to be heard on his claim that his constitutional right to due process of law

was violated by the trial court which rendered a final default judgment against Petitioner

when he had not been lawfully served with process and before any non-hearsay evidence was
provided..

ARGUMENT FOR MANDAMUS RELIEF

The due process protections afforded by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

and Article 1, §21 of the Florida Constitution provide this court with jurisdiction to hear this

All Writs Petition. The Second District Court of Appeal's use of a PCA to deny the petition

for certiorari is not an acceptable judicial result in this case where there is nothing in the

record to support the circuit court's affirmation of the trial court orders denying Petitioner's

motion to dismiss for lack of service of process and entering a default final judgment against

2
him. The Second District Court of Appeal failed to articulate any basis to justify the PCA

denial of the petition for certiorari review of these orders. The PCA denial was entered

despite the fact that at the time the trial court entered the final default judgment and denied

Petitioner's motion to dismiss for lack of service, the 120 day time limit for service of process

had already passed, Respondent had not made the legally required application for an

extension of time for the issuance of a pluries summons, Petitioner had not been served with

process and the trial court had no authority to render a judgment against Petitioner.

Petitioner timely sought certiorari review on the ground that the lack of service of process

rendered the entry of the final default judgment erroneous as a matter of law. Petitioner

showed the Second District Court that the Circuit Court, sitting in its appellate capacity,

abused its discretion when it failed to reverse and vacate the final default judgment and when

it affirmed the trial court's order denying Petitioner's motion to dismiss for lack of service. A

copy of Petitioner's Motion For Rehearing, together with copies of the March 28, 2017 Order

Denying Motion For Rehearing, the lower court's Order denying Petitioner's motion to

dismiss for lack of service and the final default judgment, which Orders and judgments were

the basis for Petitioner's application for a writ of certiorari to the Second DCA, together with

the documents filed in the trial and circuit courts are attached hereto as an Appendix.

The record in this case establishes that fundamental mistakes of fact and law were made,

that there is no support in the record for the Second District Court's PCA denial of the

petition for certiorari that served to affirm the entry of the default final judgment against a
3
person not served with process as required by law. To the contrary, the record establishes

that Petitioner was never served according to law and that he was denied his constitutional

right to due process of law before judgment was entered against him. The rendering of the

final default judgment prior to lawful service ofprocess was the result of the trial court acting

in excess of its jurisdiction. The final default judgment is repugnant to due process and is

manifestly unjust.

Petitioner properly sought certiorari review because the final default judgment is at odds

with and was entered contrary to Florida law. Morse v. Moxley, 691 So.2d 504, 506 (Fla. 5th

DCA 1997) (certiorari is the appropriate remedy to revoke an order already issued where the

circuit court has acted in excess of its jurisdiction); English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293

(Fla.1977) (writ of certiorari is process for the correction of errors of inferior tribunals); State

ofFlorida, Department ofJuvenile Justice v. Soud, 685 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. I st DCA 1997)

(certiorari is the proper remedy when a lower court acts "in excess of" its jurisdiction).

The record of this case and the strictures of due process of law that limit the power of our

courts provide overwhelming basis for certiorari review and support a remedy in Petitioner's

favor. Mandamus is the proper remedy because the PCA fails to address the record that

establishes that both the Circuit Court sitting in its appellate capacity and the trial court that

entered the default final judgment acted in excess of their authority by entering and affirming

a judgment against a person who had not been served with process.
 The Second District Court of Appeal should articulate its reasons for denying certiorari

review where Petitioner shows in the record that service of process lawfully issued was not

had because the Respondent failed to comply with the applicable Florida Small Claims Rules

7.070 and 7.110(d) require the filing of a motion to extend time for service where, as in this

case, 120 days had already passed which is the time limit imposed by the rules for service of

process. The Second District Court of Appeal should state why the trial court had

jurisdiction to enter judgment against Petitioner at a time when he had not been served within

the 120 day time limit and Respondent had not shown good cause for authorization of

untimely service ofprocess. The Second District Court of Appeal should explain why an

alias summons that is issued outside the limits of the applicable rules of procedure constitutes

lawful service of process sufficient to afford due process of law to Petitioner and to support

the entry of a default final judgment against him. Finally, the Second District Court should

state a reason to support its per curium affirmance of a final judgment that awarded

Respondent, appearing pro se, attorney's fees of $500.00.

Petitioner has yet to receive a meaningful opportunity to be heard at any stage of these

proceedings. A Writ of Mandamus is requested to secure an order compelling the Second

District Court of Appeal to write an opinion on his Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The

Second District Court of Appeal's PCA is not supported by the record or the law and

represents a fundamental breakdown in due process and in the integrity of the judicial

process. This Honorable Court is the last Florida Court empowered to protect Petitioner's
5
constitutional due process rights through the granting of the writ sought herein.

CONCLUSION AND DEMAND FOR RELIEF

Respectfully, the fmal judgment entered by the trial court below was contrary to law,

entered in violation of Petitioner's right to due process of law. Petitioner seeks a writ of

mandamus directing the Second District Court of Appeal to issue a written decision. This

relief is necessary and appropriate to establish whether Petitioner was afforded due process of

law before judgment was entered against him. Otherwise, the PCA issued by the Second

District Court of Appeal eliminates Petitioner's access to court in such a fashion as to

guarantee that his due process claims will never be heard and adjudicated on the merits in

accordance with the law.

REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

William Isaacs requests oral argument on this petition.

Certificate of Service

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished
by US Mail (with appendix) the Respondent, Upman's Towing Service (Randy Upman)
via USPS to Upman's Wrecker Service Inc.2175 12* Street Sarasota, Florida 34237 and
via e-mail at on the 12* day of December, 2017.
/S/ APRIL CARRIE CHARNEY

APRIL CARRIE CHARNEY, ESQUIRE

Attorney for PETITIONER William Isaacs
P.O. Box 576
Venice, Florida 34284-0576
Email: aprilcarriecharney@gmail.com
6
 Fla. Bar No.: 310425

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that this petition complies with the font requirements of Rule

9.100(l) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

/s/APRIL CARRIE CHARNEY, ESQUIRE