OSCAR COGAN AND COGAN AND SANDLER, M.D. P.A., PETITIONERS,
v.
RICHARD E. SALEEBY AND SALEEBY RANSIER, P.A., 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.
The court held that certiorari is not appropriate because the petitioners failed to demonstrate irreparable harm that cannot be remedied by a plenary appeal.
Respondents sued petitioners for legal services. Petitioners counterclaimed alleging negligence and malpractice. Respondents moved to sever the counte…
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 Professional Malpractice cases and more on FLexlaw
DELL, Judge.
Petitioners seek review by common law certiorari of an order of the circuit court granting respondents’ motion to sever. Respondents filed suit to recover compensation for legal services rendered to petitioners. Petitioners answered by filing affirmative defenses and a counterclaim in which they alleged “that the work and/or services supplied by [respondents] were deficient and lacking in professional competence so as to constitute a failure of consideration, negligence and professional malpractice.” Respondents moved to sever the counterclaim from the main action. Respondents asserted that the State of Florida had entered an order of liquidation which barred the prosecution of suits against the insureds of Lawyers Professional Liability Insurance Company for a period of six months.1 The trial court granted respondents’ motion to sever. Petitioners argue that the trial court abused its discretion because the severance may result in inconsistent verdicts. Although petitioners’ concern may be well founded, certiorari jurisdiction of this court does not lie because petitioners have failed to demonstrate a material injury which cannot be remedied by plenary appeal. See United States Fidelity & Guaranty v. Graham, 404 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), review denied, review dismissed, 419 So. 2d 1195, 1201 (Fla.1982); Chalfonte Development Corp. v. Beaudoin, 370 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Santini Brothers, Inc. v. Grover, 338 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
Accordingly, the petition for common law certiorari is denied.
CERTIORARI DENIED.
HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur. . Respondents did not introduce any evidence in support of this assertion. We direct the trial court’s attention to Chrysler Corp. v. Miller, 450 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Leon Shaffer Golnick Advertising, Inc. v. Cedar, 423 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hickey v. Pompano K OF C, Inc., 647 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…LaChance, 412 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). See also U-Haul Co. of Northern Florida, Inc. v. White, 503 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Meyers v. Shore Indus., Inc., 575 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Although there is dicta in Cogan v. Saleeby, 454 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) to the effect that the possibility of inconsistent verdicts would not be a basis for certiorari review by this court, that case is distinguishable on its facts, because it involved the trial court’s severance of a suit to recover…
Authorities Cited
- Leon Shaffer Golnick Advertising, Inc. v. Cedar, 423 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Santini Bros., Inc. v. Grover, 338 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Graham, 404 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Edwards v. Lawyers Title Guar. Fund, 370 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Wenk v. Tsiotis, 370 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Chrysler Corp. v. Miller, 450 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)