JOSEPH TUCCICASELLI, APPELLANT,
v.
BENTON AND HARRIETT GREENE ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the petition for writ of certiorari, finding that while the discovery order was reviewable, the merits did not warrant relief.
Appellant sought review of a discovery order imposing attorney's fees as a sanction for failing to take depositions and prohibiting further deposition…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Non-Final Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
By a notice of appeal appellant, acting pro se, seeks review of a discovery order entered on March 25, 1985, imposing upon him the sanction of an attorney’s fee for failure to proceed in the taking of certain depositions that he had scheduled.
The order in question is not subject to a non-final appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, but the matter can be considered as a petition for writ of certiorari. Malone v. Costin, 410 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In Malone, certiorari was denied because the court determined that the second aspect of the rule authorizing certiorari review of nonfinal orders, i.e., irreparable injury irremediable on plenary appeal, did not exist in that ease. However, in the present case, not only did the trial court impose the sanction of an attorney’s fee, it also prohibited petitioner from taking any additional depositions until the sanction was paid. That aspect of the order, in our judgment, warrants the granting of certiorari review because the harm caused, if any, cannot necessarily be rectified on plenary appeal. However, upon consideration of the merits of the case, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari.
Petitioner’s brief, such as it is, also seeks reversal of another order entered below on May 15, 1985, in which the trial court refused petitioner’s motion to impose sanctions on the attorney for one of the respondents. That order was entered after this “appeal” was already pending.1 Petitioner failed to properly seek review of that order and it is not now subject to review.
HURLEY and BARKETT, JJ., concur. . The notice of appeal from the March 25, 1985, discovery order was filed April 23, 1985.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rydell v. Gorham Rutter, Jr., 834 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…found that the order of sanctions constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law because the only basis for sanctions was the defendants’ unwillingness to make a satisfactory offer of settlement. Similarly, in Tuccicaselli v. Greene, 474 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), a trial court imposed attorney’s fees as a sanction for failing to take a deposition that had been scheduled. The fourth district held that certiorari review was proper as the trial court had prohibited the petitioner from takin…
Authorities Cited
- Malone v. Costin, 410 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)