Carrow v. The Florida Bar
| Decision Date | 11 July 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D03-50.,2D03-50. |
| Citation | 848 So.2d 1283 |
| Parties | James H. CARROW, Appellant, v. THE FLORIDA BAR, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James H. Carrow, pro se.
Barry Richard and Glenn T. Burhans, Jr., of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee.
James Carrow appeals two nonfinal, nonappealable orders entered in the trial court proceedings. We treat Carrow's appeal as both a petition for writ of certiorari and a petition for writ of prohibition, dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari, and deny the petition for writ of prohibition.
Carrow first appeals an order imposing a stay of discovery until such time as he files a legally sufficient complaint. An order on a motion imposing a stay of discovery is reviewable by petition for writ of certiorari. See Perry v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 379 So.2d 429, 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
. Accordingly, we treat this portion of the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari.
In order to prevail when seeking review of an interlocutory order by common law certiorari, the petitioner must establish that (1) the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law; (2) which has resulted in a material injury that will affect the remainder of the proceeding; and (3) which cannot be corrected through any other means. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995); Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097, 1099 (Fla.1987). Here, the stay is imposed only "until further order of the Court." In addition, the trial court noted at the hearing that the purpose of imposing the stay was simply to prevent discovery until there was a valid, operable complaint. Accordingly, once there is a valid complaint in place, the stay will be lifted, and Carrow will be entitled to those items that are discoverable. Under these circumstances, Carrow has not established that he has suffered a material injury that will affect the remainder of the proceedings. Therefore, we dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari addressed to this order.
Carrow also appeals the order denying his motion to disqualify the trial judge. An order denying a motion to disqualify a trial judge is reviewed by a petition for writ of prohibition. Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440 (Fla.1978); Rucks v. State, 692 So.2d 976 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Time Warner Entm't Co. v. Baker, 647 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Accordingly, we treat this portion of the appeal as a petition for writ of prohibition.
A motion to disqualify a trial judge must comply with the requirements of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.160. Time Warner, 647 So.2d at 1071. If the motion does not comply with the requirements of the rule, the writ will not issue. Id. Rule 2.160(c) requires a motion to disqualify a trial judge to be in writing, specifically allege...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lynch v. State
...a lower court's denial of a motion to disqualify. See Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla.1978); see also Carrow v. Fla. Bar, 848 So.2d 1283, 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Lynch contends that the conduct of the postconviction court after the conclusion of the rule 3.851 hearing and the court'......
-
Carrion v. State
...859 So.2d 563Michael CARRION, Petitioner, ... STATE of Florida, Respondent ... No. 5D03-3410 ... District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District ... November 21, 2003. 859 So.2d 564 Robert ... As we find that all requisites to the granting of a petition for writ of certiorari are satisfied, see Carrow v. The Florida Bar, 848 So.2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 858 So.2d 330 (Fla. Oct. 1, 2003), we grant the petition and stay the trial of ... ...
-
Long v. State
...CURIAM. Affirmed. See Jackson v. State, 599 So.2d 103 (Fla.1992); Golden v. State, 870 So.2d 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Carrow v. Fla. Bar, 848 So.2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Areizaga v. Spicer, 841 So.2d 494 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Carr v. State, 495 So.2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Clowers v. State......
-
Coleman v. State
...the tenth day following discovery of the information providing grounds for recusal. Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.160; Carrow v. The Fla. Bar, 848 So.2d 1283, 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). One of the grounds on which a motion to recuse can be based is "that a party fears that he or she will not receive ......