Kirk Taboada v. Rodrigo Chapur Duarte Florida: 3rd DCA Opinion Not Final

• The Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida filed an opinion in the case of Kirk Taboada v. Rodrigo Chapur Duarte.
• This judicial opinion was officially filed on September 9, 2026.
• The decision is not yet considered final, pending the resolution of any timely filed motion for rehearing.
• The appellate case is identified by the number 3D25-2125, stemming from lower tribunal case number 18-32780-CA-01.
• Kirk Taboada is identified as the appellant in this proceeding.

The court explicitly stated that the opinion will not become final until the disposition of any timely filed motion for rehearing.

The Third District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida has issued an opinion in the matter of Kirk Taboada v. Rodrigo Chapur Duarte. This appellate proceeding identifies Kirk Taboada as the appellant, indicating that he is challenging a prior decision from a lower court. The case, which is a significant part of the Florida legal landscape, involves a dispute between these two parties that has now reached the state's intermediate appellate level.

This judicial document, officially designated as an opinion, reflects the court's findings and reasoning regarding the legal arguments presented by the appellant and appellee. The involvement of the Third District Court of Appeal underscores the importance of the legal questions at hand, as this court is responsible for reviewing judgments from trial courts within its jurisdiction. The specific details of the underlying dispute are not disclosed in the procedural filing, but the case name, Kirk Taboada v. Rodrigo Chapur Duarte Florida, clearly identifies the parties involved in this ongoing legal action.

The opinion in Kirk Taboada v. Rodrigo Chapur Duarte was formally filed by the Third District Court of Appeal on September 9, 2026. However, it is crucial to note that this decision is not yet considered final. The court explicitly stated that the opinion will not become final until the disposition of any timely filed motion for rehearing.

This procedural detail means that either party still has an opportunity to request that the appellate court reconsider its decision. A motion for rehearing typically asks the court to review specific points of law or fact that the moving party believes were overlooked or misapprehended. Until such a motion is either filed and denied, or the deadline for filing one passes without action, the opinion's legal effect and precedential value remain provisional. This interim status is a standard part of the appellate process, allowing for a final review before the judgment becomes binding.

The appellate case is formally identified by the number 3D25-2125, a unique identifier assigned by the Third District Court of Appeal. This number allows for precise tracking of the case within the appellate court's docket and records. Furthermore, the opinion references a lower tribunal number, 18-32780-CA-01, which corresponds to the original case as it was heard in the trial court.

These distinct numbering systems are essential for maintaining an organized and transparent judicial record. The lower tribunal number indicates that the case originated in a civil action (CA) in 2018, providing a historical link to the initial proceedings that led to the current appeal. Together, these numbers facilitate the retrieval of all associated documents and orders, ensuring that the entire history of the litigation, from its inception to its appellate review, can be accurately traced and referenced by all interested parties and the public.

Source: Original reporting via court filing