Communities Finance Co., LLC v. Bjork

• Decision Date: 30 July 2008
• Docket Number: No. 4D08-1635.,4D08-1635.
• Citation: 987 So.2d 231
• Parties: COMMUNITIES FINANCE COMPANY, LLC and WCI Communities, Inc., Petitioners, v. Paul BJORK and Rana Khaled, Respondents.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

987 So.2d 231

COMMUNITIES FINANCE COMPANY, LLC and WCI Communities, Inc., Petitioners, v. Paul BJORK and Rana Khaled, Respondents.

No. 4D08-1635.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 30, 2008.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit,

Palm Beach County; Jonathan D. Gerber, Judge; L.T. Case No. 06 CA 9134 AB.

Joseph Ianno, Jr. and Thomas E. Warner of Carlton Fields, P.A., West Palm Beach, for petitioners.

No appearance for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The above styled petition for writ of certiorari is hereby dismissed for failure to establish any irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on direct appeal. Bared & Co., Inc. v. McGuire, 670 So.2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Topp Telecom, Inc. v. Atkins, 763 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

KLEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.

KLEIN, J., specially concurring.

Although I agree with the dismissal of this petition for certiorari, I am writing to explain my disagreement with a case cited by the majority, Topp Telecom, Inc. v. Atkins, 763 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). In Topp a panel of this court dismissed a petition seeking review of a discovery order as being overbroad and unduly burdensome, because defendants did not support their objections with an affidavit as to the difficulties or expected costs of complying with the requests. In the remainder of the opinion, which is dicta, and the part I disagree with, the court went on to state that discovery which is burdensome and unduly onerous does not warrant certiorari review unless it "would effectually ruin the objector's business." Id. at 1200. The opinion uses the words "financial ruin" and similar language throughout the remainder of the opinion. Judge Stone wrote a specially concurring opinion explaining:

I concur in the majority opinion except as to its conclusion that unless the order puts the petitioner out of business, certiorari is never available to address a discovery order that imposes an undue burden, regardless of how clearly demonstrated in the record. In my judgment, certiorari relief is available where the record is clear that an order is so overbroad or burdensome as to impose substantial and irreparable harm, although such is not the case here for the reasons set forth in the majority opinion.

Topp, 763 So.2d at 1201.

I agree with Judge Stone and would add that the financial ruin dicta in Topp is contrary to the opinion of...