Love v. Diamond Cut Auto & Detail — Florida appeals court affirmed without a written opinion

Case
Zachary E. Love, Individually and as Assignee of Wesley M. Love v. Diamond Cut Auto & Detail, LLC, Justin K. Pimental, Minette D. Pimental, Elite Auto Body and Repair, LLC, and National Vehicle Protection Corp. d/b/a NVP Warranty
Court
Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal
Judge
Stargel; Nardella; Smith
Date Decided
October 13, 2026
Docket No.
6D2026-1626
Topics
Appeals, Per Curiam Affirmance, Automobile Dispute
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Zachary E. Love, individually and as assignee of Wesley M. Love, appealed an order from the Circuit Court for Lee County in litigation against Diamond Cut Auto & Detail, LLC; Justin K. Pimental; Minette D. Pimental; Elite Auto Body and Repair, LLC; and National Vehicle Protection Corp. d/b/a NVP Warranty.

The appeal proceeded under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, which governs appeals from specified nonfinal orders. The appellate court’s decision does not identify the challenged order, describe the underlying claims, or state the parties’ arguments.

The Court’s Holding

The Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s order. Judges Stargel, Nardella, and Smith concurred in the per curiam disposition.

The court issued no written analysis and identified no legal ground for affirmance. Accordingly, the opinion establishes only that the challenged order remained in effect; it does not disclose how the panel evaluated any particular factual or legal issue.

Key Takeaways

  • The Sixth District affirmed the appealed circuit-court order.
  • The decision was a unanimous per curiam affirmance by a three-judge panel.
  • Because the court supplied no reasoning, the opinion does not announce or explain a rule of law governing the underlying dispute.

Why It Matters

The ruling ends this appellate challenge unless further review or rehearing is successfully pursued, leaving the challenged order undisturbed. Its broader significance is limited because the court did not describe the underlying issues or provide legal analysis that attorneys could apply in other cases.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top