GABLES INS RECOVERY INC
v.
PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INS CO
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.
Gables Insurance Recovery, Inc. petitioned for a writ of certiorari to quash an order compelling it to add a party as an indispensable party to its claim. The appellate court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction because Gables failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, the threshold requirement for certiorari relief.
The court dismissed the petition for writ of certiorari for lack of jurisdiction because Gables failed to meet the threshold requirement of showing irreparable harm. A petitioner must demonstrate irreparable harm to invoke the court's certiorari jurisdiction.
[1] A petition for a writ of common law certiorari will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction if the petitioner fails to demonstrate irreparable harm.
[2] A non-final order compelling a party to add an indispensable party to its claim is reviewable by writ of certiorari.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Because Petitioner has failed to meet the threshold requirement of showing irreparable harm, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.”
Establishes the primary basis for dismissal—the failure to demonstrate irreparable harm, which is the threshold requirement for certiorari relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGables Insurance Recovery, Inc. filed a claim against Progressive Express Insurance Company. During proceedings in Miami-Dade County Court, the trial …
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.
INC., a/a/0 DELTA PENA, io......i_..._. .-. ..¢.i_.-._.-. ,m....___....-___-,..__._2.__ _--.... w . ,1 ' vvv . H . . - ‘ !. ‘"1 . ._I. x:.'E*.» IE2 ‘Wi‘; V16 - ..- _i _.-W_...-‘q...--_ _. Petitioner, v-53 "‘ "—' I‘ -to i‘='c' i" HFll E91‘iiE *1 El V='i- 165:4 - 3*; '4: ; ._<._,.: ~41-§.r~./.L'U ' "l -. w = -"fa ‘--.. . ,-W M,
I PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE
* * * * *
I COMPANY
5"‘! =3 lid _~ u Respondent. I _ I _/ Opinion filed: (2 u,£cM7" I’ 7* , 2014. - A Petition for Writ of Common Law Cefiiorari from at Non-Final Order of the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Don S. Colin, Judge. G. Bart Blllbrough oiBillbrough & Marks, P.A., for Petitio11er. Douglas H. Stein and Stephanie Martinez, ofSeipp & Flick, LLP, for Respondent. Before: LEDBRMAN, SAMPEDRO-IGLESIA, and ZAYAS, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Gables Insurance Recovery, Inc. petitions this Court for a writ of C61‘llOI‘€1l‘l, and seeks to quash an order from the court below which compelled the Petitioner to add a party to its claim as an indispensable party. Because Petitioner has failed to meet the threshold 1'€’qllll‘¢l1l€l'llI of showing iireparable harm, wo dismiss the petition for lack ofjurisdiction. Miami-Dada Cmjy. v.l i. ..- _.-, _- Q ~- [*2] 08-] 5-’ 'l 4 10:40 Police Benevolent ASS’n, 103 So. 2d 236, 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (citing Bat of Ylwstees ofInternal Improvement Trust Fund v. Am. Educ. Enierx, LLC, 99 So. 3d 450, 454-55 (Fle 2012)); see also Capital One. NA. v. Forbes, 34 So. 3d 209, 212 (an. 2a no». 2010). We note that this case is complicated by the discrepancy in the jndge’s comments and order entered compelling the Petitioner to add an indispensable party to its claim.‘ It is unfortunate that this matter was not resolved in a more reasonable manner. E-_'[Ihe-C0u1‘t]:--That-was-my-recollection. I know you weI'en?t~he1"e ~Iast»time~ hut-----—- ---- -- - there was - - in this Courts Opinion there was a sufficient basis laid for the Coon to establish under the ease law, and it is the same case law that was provided the last time. And my finding means nothing more than to allow the Defendant to bring in X-Ray as a litigant. [Petitioner‘s counsel]; As a tllitd-partvdefcndant? [The Court]: Right. (Triai Tr. 16:1-I 1, Apr. 29, 2013). Subsequently, the following comments were made at the hearing: [Resp0ndent’s counsel]: I dorft believe it says third-party defendant, Your Honor. I believe it says thoy’rejoining them as a defendant. [The Court]: Well, whatever it is, it’sjoining them as a party. [Petitioner’s counsel]: Under the rules, that would be a third-party defendant, [The Court]: Whatever the rule says. [Respondent’s counsel]: Well, it would be Gables versus All X~Ray and Progressive. [The Court]: Whatever it says. [Respondenfs counsel]: Yes, Your l-lonor. (Trial Tr. 16:13-25, 17:1»2). [*3] p 08—’l 5-’ 14 10:40 FROI‘-Fl— T—4'|6 P0994/0004 F-576 Both Petitioner and Respondent filed Motions for Appellate Attorney’s Fcos. Pctitioncfs Motion for Appellato Att0mey’s Fees is DENIED. Resp:m<lent’s Motion for Appellate Atto1'ney’s Fees is GRANTED, assuming Respondent ultimately satisfies the criteria in section 768.79(3), Florida Statutes. Petition for writ ofccrtiorari is DISMISSED for lack ofjurisdiction.
CINDY S. LEDERMAN
Circuit Judge
MARIA I. SAMPEDRO-JGLESIA
Circuit Judge _ L61 /I /7 ANGELICA 13>. ZA s Circuit Judge
COPIES FURNISHED TO COUNSEL
OF RECORD AND TO ANY PARTY
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bd. OF Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So. 3d 450 (Fla. 2012)
- Cap. ONE, N.A. v. Forbes, 34 So. 3d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)