Panagakos v. Laufer, 98-03675.
| Citation | 779 So.2d 296 |
| Decision Date | 26 March 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-03675.,98-03675. |
| Parties | George PANAGAKOS, M.D., Petitioner, v. Erel LAUFER, M.D., Respondent. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Stephen O. Cole of Macfarlane, Ferguson & McMullen, Clearwater, for Petitioner.
Lester F. Murphy of Murphy Law Firm, Palm Harbor, for Respondent.
George Panagakos, M.D., petitions this court for a writ of certiorari or, in the alternative, a writ of prohibition quashing the trial court's order denying his motion to dismiss a complaint for defamation filed against him by Erel Laufer, M.D. Panagakos asserts two grounds on which the complaint should have been dismissed: (1) that the complaint is barred by the statute of limitations; and (2) that the alleged defamatory statement is protected by immunity. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
This court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to dismiss based on a statute of limitations defense by either a writ of certiorari, see Whiteside v. Johnson, 351 So.2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), or a writ of prohibition. This court has no authority through a writ of prohibition to review a trial court's denial of a defendant's motion to dismiss based on the defendant's affirmative defense of statute of limitations. Prohibition is an extraordinary writ that is extremely narrow in scope and operation. It exists to prevent "an inferior tribunal from acting in excess of jurisdiction but not to prevent an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction." English v. McCrary, 348 So.2d 293, 297 (Fla.1977). When a trial court makes an erroneous ruling on a statute of limitations defense, that error, like any other error concerning an affirmative defense, can be corrected on appeal from a final order. Cf. Mandico v. Taos Constr., 605 So.2d 850 (Fla.1992) (). Although this court in Swartzman v. Harlan, 535 So.2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), issued a writ of prohibition because an action was barred by the statute of limitations, that opinion does not specifically address the appropriateness of prohibition. Nonetheless, to the extent that it suggests that prohibition is the appropriate remedy, we believe that the reasoning of the supreme court in Mandico requires a contrary conclusion.
We also hold that under the circumstances of this case, this court does not have jurisdiction to review the trial court's order denying the motion to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Donnell's Corp. v. Ambroise
...Prohibition is inappropriate to review an order determining the time limitations under a statute of limitations. In Panagakos v. Laufer, 779 So.2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), the court This court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to dismiss based on a statute of limitations de......
-
O'Donnell's Corporation v. Ambroise, Case No. 5D03-324 (Fla. App. 5th Dist. 11/7/2003)
...Prohibition is inappropriate to review an order determining the time limitations under a statute of limitations. In Panagakos v. Laufer, 779 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), the court This court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to dismiss based on a statute of limitations d......
-
Avco Corp. v. Neff
...concerning the trial court's ruling on an affirmative defense can be corrected on appeal from a final order. See Panagakos v. Laufer, 779 So.2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). As such, Petitioners fail to demonstrate irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, ......
-
Aurora Bank v. Cimbler
...prohibition, we must determine that the trial court is unlawfully acting in excess of its jurisdiction. See, e.g., Panagakos v. Laufer, 779 So.2d 296, 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).III. AnalysisA. Writ of CertiorariWe begin our analysis by reciting the definition of mediation, found in Florida Rul......