Vals Complete Auto Repair v. UniFirst Corp. — Appeal dismissed

Case
Vals Complete Auto Repair, Inc. v. UniFirst Corporation
Court
Florida First District Court of Appeal
Date Decided
June 22, 2026
Docket No.
1D2026-0181
Topics
Appellate procedure, Dismissal
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Vals Complete Auto Repair, Inc. appealed a decision from the Circuit Court for Levy County, Florida, with Judge Craig C. DeThomasis presiding below. The appellant was represented by Stanley H. Griffis III of The Griffis Law Firm, LLC, and UniFirst Corporation, the appellee, was represented by John W. Gardner of The Gardner Law Firm.

The underlying nature of the dispute between the auto repair shop and UniFirst Corporation — a commercial uniform and workwear services company — is not disclosed in the appellate record as reproduced in this opinion.

The Court’s Holding

The First District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam order dismissing the appeal. Judges Bilbrey, Nordby, and Treadwell all concurred in the dismissal. The one-word disposition — “DISMISSED” — reflects a procedural termination of the appeal rather than a ruling on the merits of any underlying claim.

The order is not yet final, as it remains subject to any timely and authorized motion filed pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.

Key Takeaways

  • The First District dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits, issuing only a per curiam order.
  • The opinion provides no reasoning for the dismissal, which is common when an appeal is terminated on procedural or jurisdictional grounds.
  • The order does not become final until the time for filing a motion for rehearing under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 has passed.

Why It Matters

Bare dismissal orders of this kind typically signal a procedural defect — such as lack of appellate jurisdiction, an untimely notice of appeal, or failure to prosecute — rather than any substantive ruling on the parties’ dispute. Practitioners should note that the absence of a written opinion leaves the circuit court’s ruling undisturbed and provides no precedential guidance on the underlying commercial claims.

✉️ 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Your email address will not be published.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