05/22/2026
📰 COURT CASE UPDATE – STAY ORDERS ENTERED AS PLAINTIFF CONTINUES RAISING CONCERNS OF SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT AND DEFENSE MISCONDUCT
Smith v. Garcia, et al. | Case No. 2025-CA-002617-F
OKALOOSA COUNTY, Fla. — The Court has entered two new orders granting a stay pending appellate review (DINs 256 and 257), cancelling multiple upcoming hearings and pausing proceedings while several petitions remain pending before Florida’s First District Court of Appeal.
However, both orders also contain language portraying Plaintiff as contributing to a “confusing” or “almost incomprehensible” docket due to the volume of filings submitted since reassignment of the case.
Plaintiff argues these criticisms ignore repeated filings documenting what Plaintiff describes as ongoing misconduct and non-compliance by defense counsel, including:
• missed discovery deadlines,
• failure to coordinate mediation,
• false certificates of conferral,
• untimely filings,
• failed attempts to postpone hearings after deadlines expired,
• and repeated requests for retroactive relief.
Plaintiff also points to attorney Richard S. Johnson previously telling a federal judge that the ZT Motors corporate entities and Toyota of Fort Walton Beach were “non-existent entities,” while simultaneously appearing in state court representing those same entities as active defendants.
According to Plaintiff, counsel for Defendant Sheriff Eric Aden was fully aware of these alleged inconsistencies and actions, yet continued litigating alongside dealership counsel without addressing them—despite all attorneys serving as officers of the court.
Plaintiff further alleges that both Sheriff and dealership counsel submitted proposed orders that were fabricated, misleading, or inconsistent with the actual hearings, and that those defense-drafted orders were adopted and signed by the predecessor judge even after Plaintiff submitted competing proposed orders, transcript excerpts, and corrected drafts reflecting Plaintiff’s understanding of the true proceedings.
The amended order (DIN 257) additionally states that Plaintiff allegedly set a hearing without following the Court’s published coordination preferences, resulting in cancellation of an additional hearing.
Plaintiff argues the issue is no longer simply about procedural disputes, but whether:
• court rules are being equally enforced,
• the record accurately reflects the proceedings,
• and whether parties are being held to the same standards regardless of representation status.
While the case is now stayed pending appellate review, Plaintiff maintains that the appellate proceedings will also examine what Plaintiff describes as a broader pattern of selective enforcement, inaccurate orders, overlooked misconduct, and unequal application of procedural standards throughout the litigation.
