Full text
Edward David Colina v. Shiqian Jiang
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed July 16, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0705 Lower Tribunal No. 23-1248-FC 04 ________________
Edward David Colina, Appellant,
vs.
Shiqian Jiang, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Donald Cannava, Judge.
Law Offices of Barry M. Wax and Barry M. Wax, for appellant.
Kula & Associates, P.A., W. Aaron Daniel, and Elliot B. Kula, for appellee.
Before EMAS, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See § 784.046(2)(c)(1), Fla. Stat. (2023) (“A person who is the victim of sexual violence . . . has standing in the circuit court to file a verified petition for an injunction for protection against sexual violence on his or her own behalf . . . if: 1. The person has reported the sexual violence to a law enforcement agency and is cooperating in any criminal proceeding against the respondent, regardless of whether criminal charges based on the sexual violence have been filed, reduced, or dismissed by the state attorney . . . .”) (emphasis added); State v. Crose, 378 So. 3d 1217, 1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024) (“‘The indefinite article a has an accepted sense of “any,” while the definite article, the, used before a noun specifies a definite and specific noun . . . .’”) (quoting Covey v. Shaffer, 277 So. 3d 694, 696–97 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)) (emphasis in original); see also Schmigel v. Schmigel, 404 So. 3d 623, 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025) (“To satisfy due process requirements at an injunction hearing, the parties must have a reasonable opportunity to prove or disprove the allegations made in the complaint. . . . This includes allowing relevant testimony of pertinent, noncumulative witnesses who are present and cross-examination of the parties.”) (quoting Furry v. Rickles, 68 So. 3d 389, 390 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)); Lopez v. Regalado, 257 So. 3d 550, 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (finding no deprivation of procedural due process where appellant was “present, he was heard, and he addressed the *3 allegations in the petition” and “never claimed he was unprepared, . . . never requested a continuance, and . . . [a]t no time did [he] proffer evidence that was rejected by the court or complain that he was not being given an opportunity to defend himself”).