Bared & Co., Inc. v. McGuire
Citation | 670 So.2d 153 |
Decision Date | 20 March 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 95-2984,95-2984 |
Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D707 The BARED & COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. Timothy McGUIRE and United Sheet Company, Respondents. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
A defendant in a civil action sought a writ of common law certiorari in this court to review a pretrial order granting a protective order against taking a second, successive deposition. A panel of this court previously determined that the petition failed to show clearly that petitioner was likely to suffer irreparable harm from the order for which it would have no remedy on appeal. Petitioner then moved for clarification or reconsideration of the panel decision, wondering if our order of dismissal was a "typographical" error and if the order should have said "denied."
After an opinion en banc on the motion for clarification or reconsideration had been prepared, and while that opinion was circulating among the judges of this court, petitioner filed a voluntary dismissal of this case. Ordinarily a voluntary dismissal of a case involving an extraordinary writ would cause us to quash a proposed but unreleased opinion. On the other hand, there is authority for the proposition that an appellate court has discretion to release an opinion after a voluntary dismissal where the court had already expended substantial effort in preparing an opinion before the dismissal and the public interest will be thereby subserved. State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1018 (Fla.1995) ( ). Accordingly, because this case presented us with an opportunity to clarify how we consider the kind of petitions presented here and thus for the benefit of the bench and bar, we have decided to release an opinion explaining our decision in this case.
District Courts of Appeal in Florida have jurisdiction to review certain nonfinal orders of trial courts by appeal and, at the same time, to review other non-final orders by separate certiorari jurisdiction. Rule 9.030(b)(1)(B) provides that the district courts shall review by appeal "nonfinal orders of the circuit courts as prescribed by rule 9.130." Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(b)(1)(B). 1 Rule 9.030(b)(2)(A) provides that parties may seek the certiorari jurisdiction of the district courts to review "nonfinal orders other than as prescribed by rule 9.130." [e.s.] Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(b)(2)(A).
The drafters of the rules explained the policy behind this dual jurisdiction as follows:
[e.s.]
Fla.R.App.P. 9.130 (1977 Committee Notes). These two rules thus define our jurisdiction to review nonfinal orders in civil cases. And the committee commentary to rule 9.130 makes clear that certiorari jurisdiction is conterminous with the traditional usage of the writ itself.
The supreme court has distilled the elements for review by common law certiorari as follows:
[e.s.]
Kilgore v. Bird, 149 Fla. 570, 577, 6 So.2d 541, 544 (1942). As the court further elaborated:
[e.s.] 149 Fla. at 581, 6 So.2d at 545. The Kilgore court stressed that this kind of review was available "if it satisfactorily appears that no other adequate remedy is afforded by law." [e.s.] Id. Kilgore has since been explicitly reaffirmed by the court in Martin-Johnson Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097, 1099 (Fla.1987) ( ).
In short, there are two indispensable ingredients to common law certiorari when sought to review pretrial orders of the circuit courts: (1) irreparable injury to the petitioner that cannot be corrected on final appeal (2) caused by a departure from the essential requirements of law. Because of this dual nature, courts traditionally considered applications for common law certiorari, as Judge Altenbernd has recently reminded us, with a two-step approach:
Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So.2d 646, 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). 2 Passing to modern procedures, he explained:
Id. We agree that the very first consideration underlying a petition for common law certiorari review of nonfinal orders in civil cases is, of necessity, an assessment of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction, in turn, depends on the absence of effective appellate review at the end of the case in the trial court.
Although common law certiorari is a discretionary writ, 4 the question of irreparable harm and thus our jurisdiction is not discretionary. It is only if the petition demonstrates harm that cannot be corrected on final appeal that we have the power to exercise discretion to grant or withhold the writ. It must be made, at least prima facie, clear in the petition that the harm is incurable by final appeal.
Like the second district, in the past we have not been careful to make our jurisdictional decisions in these cases manifest. More often than not, we have denied such petitions when we were really deciding that we lacked jurisdiction because the petitioner had simply failed to make clear that irreparable harm or injury had resulted from the order. Moreover, our denials were sometimes taken as decisions on the merits of the order when they actually reflected merely that we lacked the power to review them. Accordingly, we have seized on the present occasion to clarify our dispositions and manner of proceeding.
When we receive a petition for common law certiorari to review a nonfinal order of the circuit court, we will initially study it only to determine if petitioner has made a prima facie showing of the element of irreparable harm. At this stage we will make no determination as to whether the order departs from the essential requirements of law. If petitioner has failed to make a prima facie showing of irreparable harm, we lack jurisdiction and will enter an order dismissing the petition. If we are satisfied that a prima facie showing of our jurisdiction--i.e. that we could not correct the order upon final appeal--has been made, we will then pass on to the next element.
At this next stage, we will study the petition to determine whether it makes a prima facie showing that the order to be reviewed departs from the essential requirements of law. If we then conclude that the petition fails to demonstrate prima facie a departure from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
American Tobacco Co. v. State
...have satisfied the threshold certiorari requirement that the order causes harm not remediable by appeal. Bared & Co. v. McGuire, 670 So.2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). This is the typical "cat out of the bag" discovery ...
-
Jenne v. Maranto
...throughout the remainder of the proceedings below, effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal"); Bared & Co., Inc. v. McGuire, 670 So.2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); see also Canadian Home Ins. Co. v. Norris, 471 So.2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (even though trial court's order denying defen......
-
STATE, DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES v. LG
...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)." Id. We have quoted with approval the proposition that "in civil cases certiorari is rarely granted because the petitio......
-
Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Higgins
... ... introduced an affidavit of the Florida general counsel for Land America Financial Group, Inc., Commonwealth's parent corporation. This affidavit shows that Commonwealth does not maintain the ... deciding whether petitioner has shown departure from essential requirements of law); accord Bared ... 975 So.2d 1177 ... & Co., Inc. v. McGuire, 670 So.2d 153, 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Beekie ... ...
-
Certiorari Review of Orders Denying Discovery in Civil Cases.
...Certiorari--Where an Appeal Will Not Provide an Adequate Remedy, 70 FLA. B. J. 56, 57 (Oct. 1996). (4) See Bared & Co. v. McGuire, 670 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (en (5) Certiorari, BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019); see also certiorari, Online Etymology Dictionary, https://www......
-
The continuing story of certiorari.
...So. 2d 694, 698 n.4 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 2000); Sabol v. Bennett, 672 So. 2d 93, 94 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1996); Bared & Co., Inc. v. McGuire, 670 So. 2d 153, 156 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1996); Parkway Bank, 658 So. 2d at (59) Parkway Bank, 658 So. 2d at 649. Matthew J. Conigliaro received his J.D. from......