NATALIIA SOLOID, YURUI SOLOID, ARSENII SOLOID, AND ILARIA SOLOID
v.
TEDD KING AND BRENDAN KING
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 Sixth District Court of Appeal dismissed a petition for writ of certiorari challenging a discovery-related order, holding that the petitioners failed to establish irreparable harm—a jurisdictional requirement for the extraordinary remedy of certiorari.
The court dismissed the petition for writ of certiorari because the petitioners failed to establish irreparable harm, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite to granting certiorari. The court held that absent irreparable harm incapable of remedy on postjudgment appeal, the district court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari.
[1] A common law writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy available only in limited circumstances.
[2] Appellate courts may grant a petition for certiorari only when the petitioner establishes a departure from the essential requirements of law, resulting in material injury…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In the absence of irreparable harm incapable of remedy on postjudgment appeal, the district court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari.”
Establishes the jurisdictional prerequisite for certiorari review—irreparable harm is mandatory
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for Collier County, with Judge James F. Stewart presiding. The underlying dis…
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 Common Law Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
DISMISSED. See, e.g., State v. Garcia, 350 So. 3d 322, 326 (Fla. 2022) (“In the absence of irreparable harm incapable of remedy on postjudgment appeal, the district court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari."); CPPB, LLC v. Taurus Apopka City Ctr., LLC, 375 So. 3d 327, 329 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (“As has been written many times over, the common law writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and is intended to be available only in limited circumstances. . . . Appellate courts may grant a petition for certiorari only when the petitioner establishes (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." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Regala v. McDonald, 374 So. 3d 855, 858 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (“Because the second and third elements, which are jointly referenced as 'irreparable harm,' are jurisdictional, they must be established before the first element, i.e., the merits, may be addressed." (citations omitted)); Boyd v. Pheo, Inc., 664 So. 2d 294, 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) ("[O]rders having the effect of denying discovery are almost invariably not reviewable by certiorari because of the absence of irreparable harm."); see generally Adkins v. Sotolongo, 227 So. 3d 717, 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (Luck, J., concurring) (“The reason most often given for allowing review of an order denying discovery is that the appellate court would not know what the information was that was excluded and, as a consequence, the court would not know how the information might have affected the outcome of the case. This argument has some practical appeal but it also has two weaknesses.
First, it is an argument that could be made about any order denying discovery. The danger in applying the rationale of the argument too freely is that it might convert an extraordinary remedy into a routine step in the process.
Second, the argument fails to take full account of the remedies that are available on direct appeal. In many cases it may be an adequate remedy to reverse the judgment for a new trial to be conducted with the benefit of the discovery previously denied." (quoting Philip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice § 30:5 (2016 ed.))).
STARGEL, WHITE and PRATT, JJ., concur.
Raymond Christopher, of Ave Maria Law Center, Ave Maria, for Petitioners.
Nicholas R. Consalvo and Kevin D. Franz, of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., Boca Raton, for Respondents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Boyd v. Pheo, Inc., 664 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Christa Adkins v. Sotolongo, 227 So. 3d 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)