St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. MARINA BAY RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOC., …, No. 1D01-0603.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtBENTON, J.
Citation794 So.2d 755
Decision Date26 September 2001
Docket NumberNo. 1D01-0603.
PartiesST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INS. COMPANY, Petitioner, v. MARINA BAY RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOC., INC., Respondent.

794 So.2d 755

ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INS. COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
MARINA BAY RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOC., INC., Respondent

No. 1D01-0603.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

September 26, 2001.


794 So.2d 756
Ralph B. Leemis, Esquire of Neilson & Associates, Orlando, for Petitioner

Bob G. Freemon of Bob G. Freemon, P.A., Tampa, Douglas L. Grose, Esquire of Douglas L. Grose, P.A., Tampa, for Respondent.

BENTON, J.

By petition for writ of certiorari, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (St.Paul) asks us to quash a circuit court's order requiring the parties, already represented by Florida lawyers, "to retain associated local counsel in Okaloosa County within ten (10) days." Persuaded that the order departed from the essential requirements of law, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the order.

Respondent here, Marina Bay Condominium Association, Inc., (Marina Bay) filed suit against St. Paul for breach of contract in connection with insurance claims arising out of property damage wrought by Hurricane Opal. When Marina Bay initiated the proceedings below, it was represented by Florida lawyers in good standing with offices in Tampa. St. Paul's original lawyers, also duly admitted in Florida and in good standing, have offices in Orlando.

After a case management conference on January 2, 2001, the trial court entered an order on January 19, 2001, reflecting its impression that "little of substance ... other than an exchange of pleadings" had occurred in the more than three years since the case had been filed. The trial court's order ruled: "Each party is hereby required to retain associated local counsel in Okaloosa County within ten (10) days of the date of this Order." The trial court's order further stated that any "further failure to cooperate among counsel may subject the counsel failing to cooperate to a $1,000.00 a day penalty."

"The petitioner who seeks a writ of certiorari must show either that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction or [otherwise] departed from the essential requirements of law. Steele v. Davis, 667 So.2d 264, 264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)." Smith v. Smith, 764 So.2d 650, 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). In addition to showing such a departure, the petitioner must demonstrate injury of a kind that cannot be remedied on appeal from final judgment. See Bared & Co. v. McGuire, 670 So.2d 153, 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). "[I]n civil cases certiorari is rarely granted because the petitioner generally cannot show that any potential injury cannot be rectified on appeal." Naghtin v. Jones, 680 So.2d 573, 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (quoting Riano v.

794 So.2d 757
Heritage Corp. of South Fla., 665 So.2d 1142, 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996))

In the present case, St. Paul argues that its petition for writ of common law certiorari is appropriate because of the "inherent irreparable harm of a trial judge acting clearly beyond his authority, for unknown reasons, and without due process, and beyond the essential requirements of law." This general claim of irreparable injury falls short. See Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc. 720 So.2d 214, 215 (Fla.1998) (rejecting the contention that the possibility of having to bear the expense of trying a case twice is irreparable harm); Stoever v. Vedder Homes, Inc. 697 So.2d 1247, 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Naghtin, 680 So.2d at 577. So does St. Paul's complaint that it may be required to pay the additional attorney's fees Marina Bay will have to pay its "local counsel": St. Paul may never be ordered to pay Marina Bay's fees or all of them, and any such order could be remedied on appeal, in any event.

But we are persuaded by St. Paul's assertion that it will suffer irreparable injury because of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • STATE, DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES v. LG, No. 1D01-1984.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 26, 2001
    ...Smith v. Smith, 764 So.2d 650, 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)." St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Marina Bay Resort Condo. Ass'n, 794 So.2d 755, 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). "In addition to showing such a departure, the petitioner must demonstrate injury of a kind that cannot be remedied ......
  • Olges v. Dougherty, No. 1D02-5152.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • August 29, 2003
    ...as it did. See Martin-Johnson, Inc., 509 So.2d at 1099; St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Marina Bay Resort Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 794 So.2d 755, 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Central to this aspect of the case is Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360's ("Examination of Persons") req......
  • STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. ROSIEK CONST., No. 1D04-3135.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 15, 2005
    ...South Fla., 665 So.2d 1142, 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996))." St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Marina Bay Resort Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 794 So.2d 755, 756-57 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). While an "order compelling discovery over a claim that the evidence is privileged is generally reviewable ......
  • Moore v. Golson, No. 1D01-1777.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 26, 2001
    ...either particularly challenging, or "which present opportunities for education of the practitioners," for review by peer-review 794 So.2d 755 committees at regional and statewide As the above Bulletin reveals, the purpose of the entire Mortality Review Program, as well as outside ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • STATE, DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES v. LG, No. 1D01-1984.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 26, 2001
    ...Smith v. Smith, 764 So.2d 650, 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)." St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Marina Bay Resort Condo. Ass'n, 794 So.2d 755, 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). "In addition to showing such a departure, the petitioner must demonstrate injury of a kind that cannot be remedied ......
  • Olges v. Dougherty, No. 1D02-5152.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • August 29, 2003
    ...as it did. See Martin-Johnson, Inc., 509 So.2d at 1099; St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Marina Bay Resort Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 794 So.2d 755, 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Central to this aspect of the case is Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360's ("Examination of Persons") req......
  • STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. ROSIEK CONST., No. 1D04-3135.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 15, 2005
    ...South Fla., 665 So.2d 1142, 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996))." St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Marina Bay Resort Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 794 So.2d 755, 756-57 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). While an "order compelling discovery over a claim that the evidence is privileged is generally reviewable ......
  • Moore v. Golson, No. 1D01-1777.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 26, 2001
    ...either particularly challenging, or "which present opportunities for education of the practitioners," for review by peer-review 794 So.2d 755 committees at regional and statewide As the above Bulletin reveals, the purpose of the entire Mortality Review Program, as well as outside ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT