GEORGE ESLER, SEAGOING ELECTRONICS CORP., AND BARCO ELECTRONICS, INC., PETITIONERS,
v.
ALBERT GABINET, RESPONDENT
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.
Petitioner sought common law certiorari review of a trial court's denial of a protective order in a discovery dispute arising from a shareholder dispute between 50/50 owners of marine electronics corporations. The appellate court denied certiorari, finding that petitioner failed to demonstrate the trial court departed from essential requirements of law or that there was no adequate remedy on appeal.
The court denied certiorari because petitioner failed to demonstrate either that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law or that there was no adequate remedy on appeal after final judgment. The court did not decide whether the trial court erred on the merits of the protective order.
[1] Common law certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that requires a showing that the lower court departed from the essential requirements of law and that there is no adequat…
[2] A party seeking a protective order must demonstrate that discovery demands are burdensome, embarrassing, or otherwise improper.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Based on the petition and attachments, and the very nature of the 50/50 ownership of the business, we conclude petitioner has failed to show the necessary basis for cer-tiorari jurisdiction. There has been no demonstration that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law or that there is no adequate remedy on appeal after final judgment.”
Establishes the standard for certiorari jurisdiction and the petitioner's failure to meet it.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner and respondent each owned 50% of two marine electronics corporations. A conflict arose between the parties, leading respondent to resign hi…
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 Certiorari Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
Petitioner here seeks review by common law certiorari of the lower court’s denial of a protective order under Rule 1.280(c) Fla. R.Civ.P. Petitioner and respondent each own 50% of two marine electronics corporations. Conflict arose between the parties which resulted in respondent’s resigning his corporate office and establishing a competing-electronics firm. Respondent then filed suit to dissolve the co-owned corporation, for damages and for cancellation of certain corporate acts. Respondent sought production of certain corporate documents under Rule 1.350 Fla.R.Civ.P.
Pursuant to a motion to compel discovery, the documents were ordered produced and petitioner was ordered to submit to deposition. Petitioner subsequently sought a protective order which was denied. Petitioner here seeks review of that denial.
Based on the petition and attachments, and the very nature of the 50/50 ownership of the business, we conclude petitioner has failed to show the necessary basis for certiorari jurisdiction. There has been no demonstration that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law or that there is no adequate remedy on appeal after final judgment. Pic v. Hoyt Development Co., Inc., 309 So. 2d 586 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). In denying certiorari, we do not decide whether the trial court erred. Such a determination would be premature as noted by the First District in Ford Motor Company v. Edwards, 363 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
The trial court, of course, still retains jurisdiction to enter a protective order if the petitioner can demonstrate that any particular demands in the actual course of discovery are burdensome, embarrassing, or otherwise improper. The petition for certiorari is hereby DENIED.
CROSS and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bowl Am. Fla., Inc. v. Schmidt, 386 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…. See Santini Brothers, Inc., v. Gro [*1205] ver, 338 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Chalfonte Development Corp. v. Beaudoin, 370 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Lynch v. City of Deerfield Beach, 369 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Esler v. Gabinet, 369 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). I concur with the majority opinion that the amendment of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure, Rule 4.2, now superseded by Rule 9.130, limits interlocutory appeals to those categories specifically listed in the rule as amended.…
-
Johnson v. Henningson, 370 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…on filed April 18,1979; Santini Brothers, Inc. v. Grover, 338 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Siegel v. Abramowitz, 309 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Solitron Devices, Inc. v. Reiland, 311 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). See also: Esler v. Gabinet, 369 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). CERTIORARI DENIED. DOWNEY, C. J., and ANSTEAD and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.…
-
Lynch v. City OF Deerfield Beach, 369 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Santini Brothers, Inc. v. Grover, 338 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Siegel v. Abramowitz, 309 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Solitron Devices, Inc. v. Reiland, 311 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). See also: Esler v. Gabinet, 369 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). CERTIORARI DENIED. DOWNEY, C. J., and CROSS and BERA-NEK, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Peckham v. Good Life Enters., Inc., 363 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Laurent PIC and Mary Ann Pic v. Hoyt Dev. Co., Inc., 309 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)