EMED URGENT AND PRIMARY CARE, P.A. D/B/A EMED MULTISPECIALTY GROUP, P.A., RENE U. PULIDO, M.D., JUAN D. PULIDO, M.D., AND JESSICA GOMEZ, ARNP
v.
BARBARA RIVAS, SURVIVING SPOUSE, AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JOSE RIVAS, DECEASED, DAVID SMITH OWENS, M.D., RADIOLOGY CONSULTATION SERVICES, P.C., 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.
The appellate court dismissed a petition for certiorari because the petitioners failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, a necessary element for such review. This case clarifies the jurisdictional requirements for seeking interlocutory review via certiorari.
No, the petitioners failed to establish irreparable harm. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to grant certiorari relief from the non-appealable, non-final order.
[1] The irreparable harm element of the certiorari standard—requiring material injury that cannot be remedied on appeal—is jurisdictional and must be established before an ap…
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“To obtain relief by certiorari, ‘[t]he petitioning party must demonstrate that the contested order constitutes ‘(1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal.’”
This quote outlines the three-part test required for a party to obtain certiorari relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners sought certiorari review of a non-final order. They argued that the order would cause material injury that could not be corrected on appea…
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 Postjudgment Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
To obtain relief by certiorari, “[t]he petitioning party must demonstrate that the contested order constitutes ‘(1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal.’” Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So. 3d 450, 454 (Fla. 2012) (quoting Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Florida, Inc., 889 So. 2d 812, 822 (Fla. 2004)). “These last two elements are sometimes referred to as irreparable harm.” Damsky v. Univ. of Miami, 152 So. 3d 789, 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). “The ‘irreparable harm’ prong of the certiorari standard—i.e., material injury that cannot be remedied on appeal—is jurisdictional and must be considered first.” CVS Caremark Corp. v. Latour, 109 So. 3d 1232, 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Petitioners have failed to establish that they will suffer irreparable harm if the order under review stands. Petitioners offer only unsupported speculation of future harm, which is not sufficient to establish material injury. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P. v. Endicott, 81 So. 3d 486, 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“Generally speaking, irreparable harm cannot be speculative, but must be real and ascertainable.”); Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Tr. Fund, 99 So. 3d at 455 (“If the party seeking review does not demonstrate that it will suffer material injury of an irreparable nature, then an appellate court may not grant certiorari relief from a non-appealable non-final order.”). We therefore dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED. MAKAR, WINOKUR, and LONG, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pitts v. Neptune, 396 So. 3d 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)
-
Scott v. Scott, 375 So. 3d 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)
-
Fla. Dep't of Law Enf't v. Johnson (Fla. 1st DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes OF Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 2004)
- Bd. OF Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So. 3d 450 (Fla. 2012)
- Damsky v. Univ. OF Miami & Alan Livingstone, M.D., 152 So. 3d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P. v. Shelia Endicott and her husband Dan Endicott, 81 So. 3d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- CVS Caremark Corp. & Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc. v. Latour, 109 So. 3d 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)