DCA 1995) (discussing the traditional role of appellate judges as neutral decision-makers rather than as advocates for a party). However, instead of requesting leave to amend, Petitioner chose to wait until he filed his reply to challenge the trial court’s amended order. Although the JAC addressed the amended final order in its response to the petition, this does not mean that the JAC waived its right to respond to Petitioner’s arguments nor its right to defend the amended order. Granting the petition for writ of certiorari in this case would be a violation of due process because it would deprive the JAC of the opportunity to respond to the new argument raised by Petitioner in the reply. See Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Dellacava, 100 So.3d 234, 236 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, we decline to reach the
holding that an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief is waived holding that issue raised for the first time in reply brief was waived holding that the department was denied due process when the circuit court granted certiorari relief on an issue that was raised for the first time in the petitioners reply holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal holding an appellant who raised an issue for the first time in his reply brief waived the claim