SUNBEAM TELEVISION CORP., APPELLANT,
v.
CLEAR CHANNEL METROPLEX, INC., CLEAR CHANNEL BROADCASTING LICENSES, INC., GFS CORP., ISLE OF DREAMS, LLC, AND LEXI DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., 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.
Sunbeam Television Corporation sought a stay pending appeal and alternatively a writ of mandamus from the Third District Court of Appeal. The court denied both motions without prejudice but extended a temporary stay for 30 days to allow Sunbeam to obtain a ruling on its stay motion from the trial court.
The court denied both the motion for stay and the motion for mandamus without prejudice, holding that the trial court is the appropriate forum to initially consider stay requests and that Sunbeam still had available avenues to present the matter to the trial judge before the appellate court would intervene.
[1] A motion for a stay pending appeal must be presented in the first instance to the trial court.
[2] To prevail on a motion for a stay pending appeal, a party must establish a likelihood of success on the merits and a likelihood of irreparable harm absent the stay.
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 order to prevail on such a motion, a party must establish: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) a likelihood of harm absent the entry of a stay.”
Establishes the two-part test required to obtain a stay pending appeal under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSunbeam filed a motion for stay pending appeal with the appellate court. The trial court had not yet ruled on Sunbeam's stay request. A status confere…
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 Likelihood Of Irreparable Harm cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motion for Stay
Appellant, Sunbeam Television Corporation (“Sunbeam”), asks us to grant a stay pending appeal. In the alternative, Sunbeam asks us to issue a writ of mandamus.
The Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure envision that a motion for a stay on appeal be presented in the first instance to the trial court. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.310(a), (f) (2012). In order to prevail on such a motion, a party must establish: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) a likelihood of harm absent the entry of a stay. Campbell v. Chitty, — So.3d(Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Perez v. Perez, 769 So.2d 389, 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The trial court’s decision is then subject to review by this Court under the highly deferential abuse of discretion standard. Parker v. Estate of Bealer, 890 So.2d 508, 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The idea is that the court most familiar with the controversy is in the best posture to determine the appropriateness and conditions of a stay. See City of Sarasota v. AFSCME Council ’79, 563 So.2d 830, 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (“Generally, the lower tribunal has broad discretion in the matter of a stay.”); see also Pabian v. Pabian, 469 So.2d 189, 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (“[T]he trial court has considerable latitude in controlling the circumstances under which the proceedings may be stayed pending review.”) (citation and internal quotations omitted).
Sunbeam asks us to rule on its stay request, based on the assertion that the stay request should be treated as denied because the trial court has not ruled on the request. Sunbeam asserts in the alternative that, because the trial court has yet to rule on its stay request, we should issue a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to do so. We decline either alternative because the record reflects that Sunbeam still has avenues available to it to get this matter before the trial judge.1 While we note that there have been rare instances in which this Court has considered stay re-1 *773quests filed with the Court as an initial matter, pursuant to its jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.810(f) (2012), see, e.g., Perez v. Perez, 769 So.2d 389, 391 & n. 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Offerman v. Offerman, 643 So.2d 1184, 1184 & n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), we decline to exercise that jurisdiction here.
For the reasons set forth above, we deny the appellant’s motion for stay and appellant’s motion for mandamus, without prejudice. In order to allow the appellant to obtain a ruling on its motion for stay pending before the trial court, however, we extend our temporary stay for thirty (30) days from the date of this order, or until the trial court has ruled on the motion for stay, whichever is sooner.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Planned Parenthood OF Greater Orlando v. MMB Props., 148 So. 3d 810 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)
-
Everett v. Everett, 196 So. 3d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…ate, Dep’t of Transp., 526 So. 2d 998, 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). We review the lower tribunal’s decision on the motion to stay under the “highly deferential” abuse of discretion standard. See Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Clear Channel Metroplex, Inc., 117 So. 3d 772, 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). “The idea is that the court most familiar with the controversy is in the best posture to determine the appropriateness and conditions of a stay.” Id. Appellant argues that the lower tribunal improperly ruled on the motion…
-
Cap. Dev. Grp., LLC v. Buena Vista Terminal, LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…ate issues, or unless otherwise modified or vacated. (f) Review. Review of orders entered by lower tribunals under this rule shall be by the court on motion. As this Court stated in Sunbeam Television Corporation, v. Clear Channel Metroplex, Inc., 117 So. 3d 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012): The Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure envision that a motion for a stay on appeal be presented in the first instance to the trial court. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.310(a), (f) (2012). . . . The trial court's decision is then subject…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Perez v. Perez, 769 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Parker v. Est. OF Hartford E. Bealer, 890 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Pabian v. Pabian, 469 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Offerman v. Offerman, 643 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- City OF Sarasota v. AFSCME Council '79 & Pub. Emps. Relations Comm'n, 563 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)