Full Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT JUGAL K. TANEJA, Appellant, v. FIRST STREET AND FIFTH AVENUE, LLC; DOWNTOWN ST. PETE PROPERTIES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; BROADWAY BANK, an Illinois banking company; FUEL INVESTMENT and DEVELOPMENT II, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; PARAGON MORTGAGE HOLDINGS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; ABED INC., a Florida corporation; INDIRA LALWANI, individually; FUEL GROUP, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; SMITH SANTIESTEBAN ALLEN ARCHITECTS, INC., a Florida corporation; and CHANDRESH SARAIYA, individually, Appellees. No. 2D20-679 March 25, 2022 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Keith Meyer, Judge. Matthew J. Conigliaro, of Carlton Fields, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. John A. Anthony, Andrew J. Ghekas, and Nicholas Lafalce, of Anthony & Partners, LLC, Tampa, for Appellee, First Street and Fifth Avenue, LLC. No appearance for remaining Appellees. ORDER GRANTING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE On August 12, 2021, Appellant Jugal Taneja filed a "Motion to Enforce Mandate and Alternative Petition for Writ of Prohibition or Other Relief" seeking to preclude the trial court from allowing Appellee First Street & Fifth Avenue, LLC (FSFA), to amend its complaint on remand from our reversal of a deficiency judgment entered in FSFA's favor (the initial motion). After the trial court rendered an order permitting FSFA to amend its complaint, Taneja filed a motion in this court seeking to amend his initial motion as well as a proposed "Amended Motion to Enforce Mandate and Alternative Petition for Writ of Prohibition or Other Relief" (the amended motion). We grant the motion to amend and accept the amended motion as properly filed.1 1 Prior to the trial court granting FSFA's request to amend its complaint, Taneja also filed a motion in this court seeking a stay of the underlying proceedings pending our consideration of his initial motion. In light of subsequent developments, the motion to stay is denied as moot. 2 Turning to the merits of the amended motion, Taneja argues that the trial court's order permitting FSFA to amend its complaint impermissibly contravenes this court's ruling on appeal that because FSFA failed to assert a claim against Taneja based on his guaranty of the subject loan, it was not entitled to recover against him in personam in the underlying foreclosure action. This argument is well taken. See Don Suntan Corp. v. Tanning Rsch. Lab'ys, Inc., 505 So. 2d 35, 36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) ("In order to prevent later events in the trial court from circumventing or 'mooting' the binding aspect of an appellate adjudication, the general rule is that once an appeal has been taken, the decision on appeal becomes 'the law of the case,' and, on remand, amendments to the pleadings cannot be made to present new and different issues of fact or law unless the appellate court in its opinion has authorized such amendments."). "[A] procedure which allows an appellate court to rule on the merits of a trial court judgment and then permits the losing party to amend his initial pleadings to assert matters not previously raised renders a mockery of the 'finality' concept in our system of justice." Dober v. Worrell, 401 So. 2d 1322, 1324 (Fla. 1981). 3 Contrary to the arguments set forth in FSFA's response, this court has reviewed the merits of the judgment as to the guaranty count and, for the reasons set forth in this court's opinion, determined that FSFA is not entitled to relief against Taneja on that claim. Unlike the cases cited by FSFA for the proposition that amendment should be permitted on remand from a reversal on appeal, our decision in this case was rendered after the guaranty count had been fully litigated and the trial court had entered a final judgment on the same. Cf. Wells Fargo Armored Servs. Corp. v. Sunshine Sec. & Detective Agency, Inc., 575 So. 2d 179, 180-81 (Fla. 1991); DOT (SR) v. Telesur, 136 So. 3d 1239, 1240-42 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). FSFA is not entitled to another bite at the apple. Accordingly, we grant the amended motion to enforce mandate and direct the trial court to vacate the order granting FSFA's request to amend its complaint and enter a final judgment in favor of Taneja on the guaranty count. NORTHCUTT, ATKINSON, and STARGEL, JJ., Concur. 4