MINOR STREET LP
v.
DANIEL L. ALLEN, 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 petition for writ of certiorari is the proper vehicle to review a circuit court appellate division's denial of appellate attorney's fees, but certiorari review is granted only when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
[1] A petition for writ of certiorari is the proper vehicle for review of a circuit court appellate division's denial of appellate attorney's fees, and certiorari review is d…
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 district court should exercise its discretion to grant certiorari review only when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.”
Standard for certiorari review cited from Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885, 889 (Fla. 2003).
Minor Street LP appealed from an order denying its motion for appellate attorney's fees as sanctions rendered by the circuit court appellate division …
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 Writ Of Certiorari Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed May 1, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D23-1050 Lower Tribunal No. 22-0050 AP
Minor Street, LP, Petitioner,
vs.
Daniel L. Allen, et al., Respondents.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Appellate Division, Ramiro C. Areces, Judge.
Bercow Radell Fernandez Larkin & Tapanes, PLLC, and Nicholas Jay Rodriguez-Caballero and Thomas H. Robertson; Capua Law Firm, P.A., and Marisa Pia Capua, for petitioner.
James M. Mahaffey III, for respondents.
Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.
On Motion for Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of Minor Street LP #1's Motion for Rehearing, we withdraw our February 21, 2024 opinion and substitute this opinion in its place. Minor Street appealed from an order denying its motion for appellate attorney's fees as sanctions rendered in the circuit court appellate division. Although this order was the first ruling on sanctions, it was addressed at oral argument by the circuit court appellate panel below and ruled on in the appellate division. Consequently, the order is properly reviewable under this Court's certiorari jurisdiction. See City of Miami Beach v. Deutzman, 180 So. 3d 245, 245-46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (reviewing a circuit court appellate division order, which was the first ruling on the question of attorneys' fees, under certiorari jurisdiction); United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Doctor Rehab Ctr., Inc., 121 So. 3d 66, 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (reviewing a circuit court appellate division's 57.105 fee order under certiorari jurisdiction); Comprehensive Health Ctr., LLC v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 99 So. 3d 525, 525 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“A petition for a writ of certiorari is the proper vehicle for review of the circuit court appellate division's denial of appellate attorney's fees.").
We therefore treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. See S. Florida Pain & Rehab. Ctr., Inc. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 82 So. 3d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (treating an appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari to review
an order denying fees rendered by the circuit court appellate division). “A district court should exercise its discretion to grant certiorari review only when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885, 889 (Fla. 2003). Because the circuit court appellate division did not violate a clearly established principle of law in denying the motion for sanctions, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari.
Petition denied.