FAR OUT MUSIC, INC., FAR OUT PRODUCTIONS, INC., FAR OUT MANAGEMENT, LTD., STEVEN GOLD AND JERRY GOLDSTEIN, PETITIONERS,
v.
LEROY LONNIE JORDAN, SYLVESTER ALLEN, HAROLD BROWN, AND HOWARD SCOTT, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS THE RECORDING AND PERFORMING MUSICAL GROUP KNOWN AS "WAR," 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.
Far Out Music and others sought certiorari to quash a trial court's discovery order while their appeal of a jurisdictional ruling was pending. The Florida appellate court held that defendants cannot be compelled to respond to discovery as parties while challenging the court's jurisdiction over them on appeal, but the opposing party may attempt to obtain discovery through non-party subpoena procedures.
A trial court may not compel parties to respond to discovery while an interlocutory appeal challenging the court's jurisdiction over them is pending. However, the opposing party may seek discovery from such defendants through non-party subpoena procedures rather than party discovery rules.
[1] A trial court may not compel discovery from a party over whom it has not yet established jurisdiction when an interlocutory appeal challenging that jurisdiction is pendin…
[2] Compelling discovery from a party whose personal jurisdiction is the subject of a pending interlocutory appeal constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of…
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“[I]nasmuch as the subject matter of such an interlocutory appeal is the very question of the trial court's right to proceed with an exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant, the trial court has a right to proceed with the cause but not to destroy the subject matter of the appeal.”
Establishes the foundational principle that discovery cannot be imposed while jurisdiction is under appellate review, as it would undermine the subject matter of the appeal
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners appealed from a non-final order denying their motions to quash service of process and to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. While that appe…
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 Compelled Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
In May 1983, the above-named petitioners appealed from a non-final order denying their motions to quash service of process and to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction over their persons. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i). Notwithstanding that the aforementioned appeal was still pending in this court (and is still pending to this date), the trial court in July 1983 ordered the petitioners to respond to a request for production of documents and to answer interrogatories served upon them. The petitioners now seek certiorari from this latter order, contending that until we have determined the issue on appeal, that is, whether the trial court has jurisdiction over their persons, the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction over them by compelling discovery is a departure from the essential requirements of the law. We agree with this contention and grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the trial court’s order.
In Ward v. Gibson, 340 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), this court held that a defendant who has appealed an order determining that the trial court has acquired jurisdiction over his person may not be compelled to appear for deposition while that appeal is pending. The rationale of our decision was that:
“[Ijnasmuch as the subject matter of such an interlocutory appeal is the very question of the trial court’s right to proceed with an exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant, the trial court has a right to proceed with the cause but not to destroy the subject matter of the appeal.” Id. at 482.
The respondents apparently concede that they should not be permitted to seek discovery from these still putative parties as to matters going to the merits of their action. They argue, however, that they should be able to seek discovery of evidence which can be used to defeat the petitioners’ claim of lack of jurisdiction. But Ward v. Gibson makes no such distinction, and, indeed, given the rationale of that decision, no such distinction can be made. If indeed the respondents are, at this stage of the proceedings, arguably entitled to procure documents or testimony from the petitioners, they cannot do so by utilizing rules of discovery pertaining to parties. Instead, as Ward v. Gibson suggests, they must treat the petitioners as any other witnesses and attempt to procure answers and the production of documents from the petitioners by a subpoena duly served upon them.
Writ of certiorari granted; order under review quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
RD & G Leasing, Inc. v. Stebnicki, 626 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…ing the motion to dismiss also contained a ruling which quashed service of process. It is, of course, true that an order quashing service of process is an appealable non-final order. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i); Far Out Music, Inc. v. Jordan, 438 So. 2d 912, 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). RD & G reasons that if the written order contains one ruling which is subject to interlocutory appeal under Rule 9.130, then any other ruling which is contained in the same written order “tags along” and is reviewable on int…
-
Gleneagle Ship Mgmt. Co. v. Leondakos, 602 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 1992)…ourt of Appeal held that a plaintiff could not seek discovery as to jurisdictional issues while the question of jurisdiction was still before the trial court. In F. Hoffmann LaRoche, the court followed the reasoning of Far Out Music, Inc. v. Jordan, 438 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), which “held that a plaintiff could not seek party discovery, including the use of interrogatories, as to jurisdictional issues while that question is being contested by the defendant on appeal from an order sustaining jurisdictio…
-
Chapman v. Lottie F. Sheffield and her husband, 750 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Reinauer v. Greenman Adver. Assocs., Inc., 503 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Local No. 666, Concrete Prods. and Material Yard Workers v. Dennis, 453 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Far Out Music, Inc. v. Jordan, 438 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). It follows that the order denying the motion to quash the substituted service in this case is subject to immediate review by appeal. Substituted service is based on an agency theory; that is, an agent is designated by statute to…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- T. C. (Ted) Ward v. Gibson, 340 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)