Florida 3rd DCA: Tomax 2015 LLC v Gevajoni LLC Florida Opinion Not Final

• The Florida Third District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Tomax 2015, LLC v. Gevajoni, LLC on September 9, 2026.
• This opinion, identified by appellate case number 3D26-1650 and lower tribunal number 23-25286-CA-01, is not yet final.
• Its finality is contingent upon the disposition of any timely filed motion for rehearing.
• Tomax 2015, LLC is listed as the petitioner in this proceeding.
• The opinion cannot be cited as binding precedent until its final status is confirmed.

Practitioners should be aware that this opinion cannot be cited as binding precedent until the Florida Third District Court of Appeal has resolved any timely filed motions for rehearing.

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal recently issued an opinion in the case of **Tomax 2015 LLC v Gevajoni LLC Florida**, a proceeding involving petitioner Tomax 2015, LLC and respondent Gevajoni, LLC. This judicial pronouncement, identified by the appellate case number 3D26-1650, stems from a lower tribunal action designated as 23-25286-CA-01. The opinion was officially filed on September 9, 2026, by the State of Florida's Third District Court of Appeal.

Crucially, the court has explicitly stated that this opinion is not yet final. Its status remains provisional, pending the resolution of any timely filed motion for rehearing. This designation is a standard procedural step in appellate litigation, indicating that while the court has rendered its initial decision, the opportunity for parties to request a reconsideration of certain aspects of that decision remains open. The outcome of any such motion will determine the ultimate finality of the court's ruling.

The designation of an opinion as 'not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing' carries significant weight in legal practice. In Florida, as in many jurisdictions, an appellate court's decision does not attain its full precedential force until all post-decision motions, such as those for rehearing, have been addressed and resolved. This means that while the court's reasoning and conclusions are now public, they are subject to potential modification or even withdrawal based on arguments presented in a rehearing motion.

Practitioners should be aware that this opinion cannot be cited as binding precedent until the Florida Third District Court of Appeal has resolved any timely filed motions for rehearing. The very nature of a **Florida non-final appellate decision** dictates that its legal authority is provisional. Until the court issues a mandate or explicitly declares the opinion final after considering any rehearing requests, its contents serve more as an indication of the court's current stance rather than a definitive, binding legal pronouncement.

For attorneys and legal professionals, the non-final status of the **Tomax 2015 LLC v Gevajoni LLC opinion** underscores the importance of diligent monitoring. While the filing date of September 9, 2026, marks a significant development in the **Florida appellate case 23-25286-CA-01**, its ultimate impact on future litigation and legal interpretation is still unfolding. Relying on a non-final opinion as established law could lead to missteps, as the court's final decision could differ from the initial filing.

Therefore, practitioners should actively track the docket for **3D26-1650** to ascertain when the opinion achieves finality. Only after the disposition of any rehearing motions will the full precedential value of this ruling by the **Florida Third District Court of Appeal** become clear. This ongoing procedural aspect highlights a critical consideration for anyone seeking to apply or reference this particular appellate decision in their legal arguments or analyses.

Lawyers should be aware that this is a non-final opinion from the Florida Third District Court of Appeal, dated for September 2026, and cannot be cited as binding precedent until the disposition of any timely filed motion for rehearing. Practitioners should monitor its final status for potential precedential impact.

Source: Original reporting via court filing