HIGH FIVE PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL.
v.
JAMES "SKIP" RIDDLE, ET AL.
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.
Petitioners sought certiorari review of a trial court order denying their motion to amend their complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. The appellate court held that such orders are not reviewable via certiorari because an adequate remedy exists through postjudgment appeal, and dismissed the petition.
An order denying a motion to add a claim for punitive damages is not reviewable via certiorari because such a denial can be adequately remedied on postjudgment appeal. Therefore, the petition for certiorari is dismissed.
[1] An order denying a motion to amend a complaint to include a claim for punitive damages is not reviewable by certiorari because the denial can be adequately remedied by ap…
[2] To obtain certiorari relief, a petitioner must demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of law, resulting in material injury that cannot be corrected on po…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“To obtain certiorari relief, a petitioner must show '(1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal.'”
Establishes the three-part test for certiorari jurisdiction, with the last two elements being jurisdictional prerequisites.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioners sought to amend their complaint to include a claim for punitive damages pursuant to Florida law and rules of civil procedure. The tria…
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 Certiorari Review Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
James "Skip" Riddle, pro se. Sheri Riddle, pro se. Suzanne Henry, pro se.
PER CURIAM. Petitioners seek certiorari review of an order denying their motion to amend their complaint to include a claim for punitive damages pursuant to section 768.72, Florida Statutes (2018), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190. "To obtain
- 2 - certiorari relief, a petitioner must show '(1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal.' " Gift of Life Adoptions v. S.R.B., 252 So. 3d 788, 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (quoting Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812, 822 (Fla. 2004)). "The last two elements are jurisdictional and must be analyzed before the court may even consider the first element." Id. (quoting Williams v. Oken, 62 So. 3d 1129, 1132 (Fla. 2011)).
We align ourselves with our sister courts and hold that an order denying a motion to add a claim for punitive damages is not reviewable via certiorari because such a denial can be adequately remedied on appeal. See Noack v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 872 So. 2d 370, 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ("[C]ertiorari is not available to review the denial of a motion to add a claim for punitive damages because an adequate remedy exists by way of appeal."); Sloan v. Toler, 778 So. 2d 1094, 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) ("If the trial court erroneously prohibits a punitive damages claim, the plaintiff may obtain relief by way of appeal at the conclusion of the case."); see also Estate of Esterline v. Avante at Leesburg, Inc., 845 So. 2d 1028, 1029-30 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (adopting Sloan and denying certiorari regarding an order denying plaintiff's motion to amend complaint to add a claim for punitive damages).
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. MORRIS, BLACK, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Keith Robinson Oken, M.D., 62 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 2011)
- Noack v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield OF Fla., Inc., 872 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Sloan v. Toler, 778 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Est. OF Walter Edward Esterline v. Avante AT Leesburg, Inc., 845 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)