DOUGLAS HANNAH A/K/A DOUGLAS J. HANNAH, VS TONY MALKANI, DR. SUNIL MALKANI AND ACES OF NAPLES, LLC

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF F LORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2023-1983
Lower Tribunal No. 21-CA-003973
_____________________________
D OUGLAS H ANNAH a/k/a D OUGLAS J. H ANNAH,
Appellant,
v.
T ONY MALKANI, D R. SUNIL MALKANI, and A CES OF N APLES, LLC,
Appellees.
_____________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County.
Alane Laboda, Judge.
February 10, 2026
ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING, OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, WRITTEN OPINION
PER CURIAM.
This Court previously affirmed by citation opinion the trial court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee Tony Malkani and against
Appellant Douglas Hannah. Appellant moves for rehearing or, alternatively, for a
written opinion. 	In support of his request for a written opinion, Appellant argues
that a written opinion would provide a legitimate basis for Supreme Court review.
Appellant is correct on this point, and so we grant the motion for written opinion,

2
vacate our prior opinion, and substitute this opinion in its place. We otherwise deny
the motion.
Appellant, Douglas Hannah, appeals the trial court’s order granting summary
judgment in favor of Appellee Tony Malkani. Appellant makes multiple arguments
on appeal, but we write to address only one. 	We reject the remainder of the
arguments without discussion.
Appellant argues that the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata
barred Mr. Malkani’s claim against Appellant. 	However, Appellant did not raise
that argument in opposition to Mr. Malkani’s motion for summary judgment.
Rather, Appellant raised the collateral estoppel and res judicata argument for the first
time in his motion for rehearing directed to the trial court’s order granting summary
judgment, which the trial court denied. 	For this reason, we find Appellant’s
collateral estoppel and res judicata argument to be unpreserved. 	See Melrose
Ventures, LLC v. Uptempo Mktg. Corp., 418 So. 3d 217, 220 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025)
(“[A]s a general rule, new and different arguments untimely raised for the first time
in motions for rehearing which were denied are unpreserved.”).
For the same reasons given in Melrose, we certify this decision to be in direct
conflict with Kawsar v. Alhamdi Grp., LLC, 369 So. 3d 1227, 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA
2023), and Elser v. Law Offs. of James M. Russ, P.A., 679 So. 2d 309, 312 (Fla. 5th

3
DCA 1996), both of which held that a party can preserve a new argument by raising
it for the first time in a motion for rehearing.
AFFIRMED. CONFLICT CERTIFIED.
STARGEL, SMITH and MIZE, JJ., concur.
Christopher D. Donovan, of Donovan Appellate Law, PLLC, Estero, for Appellant.
Steven L. Brannock and Sarah C. Pellenbarg, of Brannock Berman & Seider, Tampa,
for Appellees, Tony Malkani, Dr. Sunil Malkani, and Aces of Naples, LLC.
Jack J. Aiello, of Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellee,
Tony Malkani.
Edward K. Cheffy, of Cheffy Passidomo, P.A., Naples, for Appellee, Aces of
Naples, LLC.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED