ANDREW BYERS, ETC., ET AL.
v.
DIGITAL RADIOLOGY, INC., ETC., 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.
Discovery regarding an accounting must be deferred until the trial court adjudicates the preliminary issue of whether the party seeking the accounting has the right to obtain one.
[1] Discovery regarding an accounting claim must be deferred until the trial court resolves the preliminary issue of whether the claimant has the right to an accounting.
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“It is well established that discovery as to an accounting must be deferred until the preliminary issue of the right to an accounting is settled.”
Court citing Arthur Finnieston, Inc. v. Pratt, 673 So. 2d 560, 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
Petitioners Byers sought certiorari review of a February 13, 2024 discovery order compelling them to provide discovery relevant to Respondent Hornsby'…
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.
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed July3, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0339 Lower Tribunal No. 22-13233 ________________
Andrew Byers, etc., et al., Petitioners,
vs.
Digital Radiology, Inc., etc., et al., Respondents.
A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne del Rio, Judge.
KSW Legal, P.A., and Kraig S. Weiss (Coral Springs), for petitioners.
Sutton Pomares Law Group, P.A., and John R. Sutton, for respondents.
Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and SCALES, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2 Petitioners1 seek certiorari review of a February 13, 2024 discovery order denying Petitioners’ motion for a protective order and compelling Petitioners to provide discovery to Respondent Douglas Hornsby that is relevant to Respondents’2 underlying claim for an accounting of Plantation Open MRI, LLC (“Plantation”). See Picerne Dev. Corp. of Fla. v. Tasca & Rotelli, 635 So. 2d 149, 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (“A writ of certiorari is the proper remedy for a premature discovery order in a suit for an accounting.”). Petitioners claim the discovery order is premature because the trial court has not yet adjudicated Petitioners’ August 8, 2023 motion to dismiss the operative amended complaint, wherein Petitioners challenge Hornsby’s standing to seek an accounting. “It is well established that discovery as to an accounting must be deferred until the preliminary issue of the right to an accounting is settled.” Arthur Finnieston, Inc. v. Pratt, 673 So. 2d 560, 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (quoting Drs. Weiland, Keiser, Jones, Shufflebarger, Cooper, P.A. v. Tindall, 372 So. 2d 505, 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)); see also G.H. Crawford Co. Fin.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ciccarelli v. State, 635 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Arthur Fennieston, Inc. v. Pratt, 673 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- G. H. Crawford Co. Fin. Servs. v. Goch, 292 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- DRS. Weiland v. Robert L. Tindall, M.D., 372 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)