LIRAN ZORELLA, ET AL.
v.
PATHMAN SCHERMER TANDY, LLP
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 Zorellas sought certiorari review of a trial court order denying their motion to stay proceedings and requiring mediation pending resolution of their motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court denied the petition, finding that the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law and that any injury could be corrected through normal appeal.
The petition for certiorari was denied. The court held that the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law because it did not delay ruling on the motion to dismiss and separately scheduled a hearing on it. Additionally, an order to mediate, without more, does not constitute material injury incapable of correction by plenary review.
[1] Certiorari relief requires a petitioner to establish a departure from the essential requirements of law, resulting in material injury that cannot be corrected on postjudg…
[2] An order to mediate, without more, does not constitute a material injury for the remainder of the case incapable of correction by plenary review, thus not necessitating c…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Before a court may grant certiorari relief . . . the petitioner must establish the following three elements: (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 legal standard for obtaining certiorari relief that the Zorellas were required to meet.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court issued an October 31, 2023 order that denied the Zorellas' motion to stay or abate proceedings and ordered the parties to mediation. T…
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 Mediation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Liran Zorella and Zorella Investments, LLC (collectively, “the Zorellas”) seek certiorari review of a non-final order that denied their motion to stay or abate pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and ordered the parties to mediation. “Before a court may grant certiorari relief . . . the petitioner must establish the following three elements: (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.” Williams v. Oken, 62 So. 3d 1129, 1132 (Fla. 2011) (quotations omitted).
The Zorellas rely on Fountainbleau, LLC v. Hire Us, Inc., 273 So. 3d 1152, 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019), in which our sister court granted certiorari relief where a trial court deferred ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and ordered arbitration “to address the merits of the case, the jurisdictional issues, and attorneys’ fees.” However, the facts of this case are different, as there has been no delay or deferral caused by the court. To the contrary, the trial court’s October 31, 2023, order directed the Zorellas to “separately schedule for hearing their Second Amended Verified Motion to Dismiss and Quash Service of Process, and coordinate same with Plaintiff’s counsel.”
Further, arbitration and mediation are fundamentally different proceedings. The former constitutes a more invasive process than the latter. In an arbitration, like a judicial proceeding, the parties advocate to a neutral charged with rendering a decision, whereas a mediation is a non-adversarial process in which the parties control the outcome. The Zorellas offer no argument as to why an order to mediate, without more, constitutes a material injury for the remainder of the case incapable of correction by plenary review, necessitating the extraordinary remedy of certiorari relief.
Petition denied.