Lurie v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., AUTO-OWNERS
| Decision Date | 16 October 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-2207,AUTO-OWNERS,92-2207 |
| Citation | 605 So.2d 1023 |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Week. D2382 Lillian L. LURIE and Charles Lurie, Wife and Husband, Appellants, v.INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Daniel M. Soloway of McKenzie & Soloway, Pensacola, for appellants.
Richard M. Denney and Melanie Shaw Seymour, Fort Walton Beach, for appellee.
ORDER ON APPELLANTS' MOTION FOR STAY OF APPELLATE
PROCEEDINGS AND REMAND TO TRIAL COURT
The appellants were plaintiffs below and they seek review of a judgment entered on a jury verdict adverse to them. They move this court to stay the appeal and to "remand" the cause to the trial court to permit proceedings on appellants' motion for a juror interview. Although we believe the appropriate remedy is a relinquishment of jurisdiction, rather than remand, we grant the relief.
Appellants moved this court to stay appellate proceedings and to return jurisdiction to the trial court for consideration of a motion for juror interview, indicating only that counsel had obtained information that one of the jurors had given false or misleading information. Appellee opposed the motion, suggesting that appellants' allegations were not sufficiently specific to justify the relief sought. Appellants filed a reply to the response, arguing that the specifics of the motion for juror interview need not be presented to the appellate court in this circumstance, but providing the court with a copy of the motion to be filed below and supporting affidavits.
Counsel for appellants shows that after the appeal was taken in this case, he was approached in a public place by a member of the jury panel. That juror informed counsel that another member of the jury had revealed during deliberations that she was employed as a nurse at West Florida Regional Medical Center. Counsel was surprised by this statement because the nurse had not revealed this employment on the questionnaire she completed nor during jury selection. It is alleged that the juror would have been stricken if the employment had been revealed, because three doctors who appeared as defense witnesses at trial worked at West Florida Regional Medical Center.
Before addressing the merits, we comment on some of the procedural aspects of this dispute. First, we agree with appellee that where a party seeks relinquishment of jurisdiction to the trial court for further proceedings during the pendency of an appeal from a final order, the burden is on the moving party to show entitlement to relief. Jurisdiction may be relinquished to the trial court "to proceed with specifically stated matters." See Fla.R.App.P. 9.600(b); Palma Sola Habour Condominium, Inc. v. Huber, 374 So.2d 1135, 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The presumption is, however, that judicial economy would be best served by leaving jurisdiction in the appellate court until issuance of mandate. A party wishing to overcome that presumption and obtain a relinquishment of jurisdiction must show entitlement to that relief by informing this court of the specific nature of the proceedings it seeks to have conducted in the trial court. We also note that the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure do not authorize a reply to a response to a motion, see Fla.R.App.P. 9.300(a), and such unauthorized pleadings are ordinarily ignored or sua...
To continue reading
Request your trial