HUBERT POWELL AND CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONERS,
v.
L. B. WINGARD; EMMCO INSURANCE COMPANY; ARCHIE RUSHIN, JR.; AND RYDER TRUCK LINES, INC., RESPONDENTS
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.
In a negligence case arising from an automobile accident, the trial court sanctioned petitioners by ordering them to pay attorney's fees and costs, or face striking of their pleadings. Petitioners sought certiorari review of this interlocutory sanction order, which the appellate court denied, holding that such discovery-related sanctions are not appropriate subjects for immediate certiorari review absent irreparable harm.
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. The court held that interlocutory orders imposing discovery sanctions are not appropriate for immediate certiorari review absent irreparable injury that cannot be adequately remedied by appeal from final judgment. Petitioners have an adequate remedy through final appeal if their pleadings are wrongfully struck.
[1] Certiorari is not available to review interlocutory orders that do not conform to the essential requirements of law where adequate relief can be obtained by a plenary app…
[2] The extraordinary writ of certiorari is most appropriately used to review interlocutory discovery orders when they improperly compel discovery.
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“the trial court's error, if any, in this instance will constitute irreparable injury to petitioner which is not subject to adequate redress by plenary appeal from a final judgment”
Establishes the standard for certiorari review: irreparable injury not remedied by final appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners Powell and Carolina Casualty Insurance Company were defendants in an automobile negligence case. Respondents attempted to depose petitione…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.130(A)(3) cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
Petitioners and respondents are parties in an automobile accident negligence case. As the consequence of respondents attempting to depose petitioners’ accident reconstruction expert before he had formed his opinion and conclusion based on his investigation, the trial court entered an order imposing sanctions totaling $600 in attorney’s fees and $154 in costs and ordered petitioner Carolina Casualty Insurance Company to pay those sums within 30 days “or their pleadings will be stricken.”
Petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to quash this interlocutory order arguing: (1) that petitioners did not induce or cause the other parties to prematurely attempt to depose its expert witness, (2) that petitioner neither failed to comply with any order of court nor did, nor failed to do, any other act justifying the imposition of sanctions authorized under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(b)(2)(C) and (F), (3) that petitioner must either pay or suffer its meritorious defensive pleadings to be stricken, and (4) that by certiorari this court should review and quash a trial court order that does not conform to the essential requirements of law where review by plenary appeal from a final judgment would not provide adequate or meaningful relief. Without expressing an opinion as to the correctness of the trial court order sought to be reviewed we deny certiorari for the reason that we do not believe that it is essential to the integrity of our legal system that all claimed interlocutory errors of trial courts be immediately reviewable by an appellate court nor do we believe that the trial court’s error, if any, in this instance will constitute irreparable injury to petitioner which is not subject to adequate redress by plenary appeal from a final judgment. As a practical matter, even the erroneous requirement that petitioner pay $754 in order to continue to participate in the trial proceedings until final judgment should not overtax petitioner’s financial ability nor cause it irreparable injury. Albeit a Hobson’s choice, petitioner does have a choice: pay and participate or decline and, if its pleadings are stricken, appeal after entry of final judgment. If the trial court does wrongfully strike petitioner’s pleadings that error will doubtless be correctable by a reversal and the time and expense of the appeal and new trial will be equally suffered by respondents. See Ford Motor Co. v. Edwards, 363 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
The certiorari jurisdiction of district courts of appeal to review non-final orders of lower tribunals under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(2)(A) is not for the purpose of providing a review of each and every non-final order which is not reviewable by appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(B) and 9.130(a)(3).
Although admittedly there are many cases taking a more liberal view as to the scope of review by certiorari, the use of that extraordinary writ to review interlocutory orders relating to discovery matters is most appropriate when used to review orders allegedly improperly compelling discovery. See, e. g., Insurance Company of North America v. Noya, 398 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Central Florida Skates, Inc. v. Thomas, 393 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Palmer v. Servis, 393 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Dolen, 390 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
As to certiorari and interlocutory orders generally, see The Hawaiian Inn of Daytona Beach, Inc. v. Snead Construction Corp., 393 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CER-TIORARI IS DENIED.
ORFINGER and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Varsenig Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…DAUKSCH, Judge. This is before us on a petition for Writ of Certiorari to the circuit court invoking our jurisdiction to quash a discovery order. Malt v. Simmons, 405 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Powell v. Wingard, 402 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). We grant the writ and quash the order. This is a slip and fall case and the plaintiff (respondent here) sought discovery of all internally produced accident reports relating to the particular grocery store where plaintiff claim…
-
Malone v. Costin, 410 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…on here, albeit “petitioner,” Ms. Malone, is faced with a Hobson’s choice: pay and participate or decline and, if her action is dismissed under rule 1.420(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, appeal after entry of final judgment. Powell v. Wingard, 402 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The mere fact that compliance with the court’s order will be costly is not, in and of itself, a ground for valid objection. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Cooey, 359 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Ford Motor Co. v. Edwards, 363…
-
Gadsden Cnty. Times, Inc. v. Mallory E. Horne, 426 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…appeal shall lure it back to cancel half a line.” Boucher v. Pure Oil Co., 101 So. 2d 408, 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957). Review by certiorari is “most appropriate when used to review orders allegedly improperly compelling discovery.” Powell v. Wingard, 402 So. 2d 532, 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (e.s.). See also, Haddad, The Common Law Writ of Certiorari in Florida, 29 U.Fla.L.Rev. 207 (1977). In this case petitioners contend that the lower court’s order fails to conform to the essential requirements of law and will…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Hawaiian INN OF Daytona Beach Inc. v. Snead Constr. Corp., 393 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Noya, 398 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Peckham v. Good Life Enters., Inc., 363 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- W. G. (Gerry) Palmer & Audio Sys. of Fla., Inc. v. Servis, 393 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- State v. Lenard B. Dolen, Jr., 390 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Wells v. State, 393 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Cent. Fla. Skates, Inc. v. Thomas, 393 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)