THOMAS R. BECNEL, AND DRB ETC.
v.
AIZ HOLDINGS, LLC
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 petitioner seeking certiorari review of a discovery order must demonstrate irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on appeal, and overbreadth in discovery does not constitute irreparable harm.
[1] Overbreadth in the context of discovery does not constitute irreparable harm sufficient to support a petition for writ of certiorari.
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 petitioner seeking certiorari review must demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of the law resulting in irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on appeal and that the irreparable harm element must be addressed first because it is an issue of jurisdiction”
Court citing W. Fla. Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. See regarding the jurisdictional requirements for certiorari
Petitioners Thomas R. Becnel and DRB Development, LLC sought certiorari review of an order granting respondent AIZ Holdings, LLC's motion to compel di…
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 Motion To Quash cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D17-3686 _____________________________
THOMAS R. BECNEL and DRB DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
Petitioners,
v.
AIZ HOLDINGS, LLC,
Respondent. _____________________________
Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction.
April 25, 2018
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners, Thomas R. Becnel and DRB Development, LLC, seek certiorari review of an order granting a motion to compel discovery filed by Respondent, AIZ Holdings, LLC, and denying DRB’s motion to quash. Because we agree with Respondent that Petitioners are unable to show irreparable harm, we dismiss the petition. See W. Fla. Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. See, 18 So. 3d 676, 682 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (noting that a petitioner seeking certiorari review must demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of the law resulting in irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on appeal and that the irreparable harm element must be addressed first because it is an issue of jurisdiction), aff’d, 79 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2012); see also Bd. of Trs. of the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So. 3d 450,
2
456 (Fla. 2012) (explaining that overbreadth in the context of discovery is not a sufficient basis for certiorari relief); Heekin v. Del Col, 60 So. 3d 437, 438-39 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (noting that an order compelling production of relevant financial information cannot be the object of a writ of certiorari because there is no irreparable harm).
DISMISSED.
LEWIS, KELSEY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Dana C. Matthews and John M. Stratton of Matthews & Jones, LLP, Destin, for Petitioners.
Laurence J. Pino of Pino Nicolson, PLLC, Orlando; Stephen D. Milbrath and Tucker H. Byrd of Byrd Campbell, P.A., Winter Park, for Respondent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kolek v. State (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)
-
Heming v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)
-
Kolek v. State (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Bd. OF Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So. 3d 450 (Fla. 2012)
- W. Fla. Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. SEE, 79 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2012)
- W. Fla. Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. SEE, 18 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Heekin v. DEL COL, 60 So. 3d 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Watts v. State, 18 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)