SAFARI PROGRAMS, INC.
v.
AMARILIS ACOSTA, 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.
A writ of mandamus does not lie to compel a trial court to schedule a hearing on a motion for summary judgment or restrict discovery because such scheduling decisions rest within the trial court's discretion rather than constituting ministerial acts.
[1] A trial court's discretionary decisions regarding the scheduling of hearings and the management of discovery are not ministerial acts and therefore cannot be compelled by…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“A duty or act is defined as ministerial when there is no room for the exercise of discretion, and the performance being required is directed by law.”
Court's statement of the legal standard for ministerial acts subject to mandamus.
Safari Programs filed a renewed motion for summary judgment under the new federal summary judgment standard adopted in Florida. The trial court cancel…
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 Ministerial Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed June 12, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0859 Lower Tribunal No. 16-10298-CA-01 ________________
Safari Programs, Inc., Petitioner,
vs.
Amarilis Acosta, et al., Respondents.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Mandamus.
Manos Schenk, PL, and Tom J. Manos, for petitioner.
Remer, Georges-Pierre & Hoogerwoerd, PLLC, and Anthony M. Georges-Pierre and Jorge L. Costa, for respondents.
Before LINDSEY, LOBREE, and BOKOR, JJ.
LINDSEY, J.
Before us is a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to require the trial court to, among other things, set a hearing on Petitioner’s renewed motion for summary judgment under the new summary judgment standard1 and prohibit Respondent, plaintiff below, from conducting any additional discovery. Petitioner alleges the trial court canceled a scheduled hearing on its renewed motion for summary judgment in April of 2024 without a motion having been filed by Respondent requesting a continuance and without Respondent having filed any written opposition to Petitioner’s renewed motion. Petitioner further alleges the trial court granted Respondent additional time for further discovery. Petitioner alleges that in light thereof, the trial court refused to provide a hearing date on the renewed motion for summary judgment on a date sooner than nine months. In order for a court to issue a writ of mandamus, a plaintiff must establish “that he has a clear legal right to the performance of a clear legal duty by a public officer and that he has no other legal remedies available to him.” Hatten v. State, 561 So. 2d 562, 563 (Fla.1990). Further, “[m]andamus is defined as a remedy to command performance of a ministerial act that the person deprived has a right to demand, or a remedy where public officials or agencies may be coerced to perform ministerial duties that they have a clear legal duty to perform.” Town of Manalapan v. Rechler, 674 So. 2d 789, 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). “A duty or act is defined as ministerial when there is no room for the exercise of discretion, and the performance being required is directed by law.” Id.
RHS Corp. v. City of Boynton Beach, 736 So. 2d 1211, 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Here, because the complained of actions rest within the discretion afforded the trial court, mandamus does not lie. Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, 309 So. 3d 192 (Fla. 2020)
- Hatten v. State, 561 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1990)
- The Town OF Manalapan v. Morton Rechler and Beverly Rechler, 674 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- RHS Corp. v. City OF Boynton Beach & Clear Copy, Inc., 736 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)