Rashedah Amatullah v. Roney Palace Condominium Association, Inc.
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledSeptember 24, 2026
Docket3D2026-0086
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed September 24, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D26-0086
Lower Tribunal No. 24-8567-CA-01
________________
Rashedah Amatullah,
Appellant,
vs.
Roney Palace Condominium Association, Inc., et al.,
Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Robert T.
Watson, Judge.
Rashedah Amatullah, in proper person.
Hamilton Miller & Birthisel, LP, and Sheryl S. Natelson; Wilson Elser
Moskowitz & Dicker, LLP, and Donna M. Krusbe (West Palm Beach); Zinober
Diana & Monteverde, P.A., and Michael A. Monteverde and Natalya Lopez
(Fort Lauderdale), for appellees.
Before SCALES, C.J., and LINDSEY and MILLER, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Amatulah v. Palmier, 417 So. 3d 495, 496 (Fla. 3d DCA
2025) (affirming dismissal of a pro se complaint filed by this same appellant,
observing: “It is a cardinal rule of pleading that a complaint be stated simply,
in short and plain language. The complaint must set out the elements and
the facts that support them so that the court and the defendant can clearly
determine what is being alleged[.]” (quoting Barrett v. City of Margate, 743
So. 2d 1160, 1162-63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999))); Collado v. Baroukh, 226 So. 3d
924, 927 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“Commingling various claims against all
defendants together may also warrant dismissal of a complaint.”); Alvarez v.
DeAguirre, 395 So. 2d 213, 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (“While the policy in
Florida is to liberally allow amendments to pleadings where justice so
requires, a trial judge in the exercise of sound discretion may deny further
amendments where a case has progressed to a point that liberality ordinarily
to be indulged has diminished.”) (citations omitted); P.B. v. Dep't of Child. &
Fam. Servs., 709 So. 2d 590, 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“We do not consider
the question of adequate notice because Appellants did not object to the lack
of notice in the proceedings below or request a continuance. The first time
they raised the issue was on appeal. By failing to object and by proceeding
on the matter at the hearing, Appellants waived their objections to the lack
of notice.”).
2