SOLID SOLUTION, LLC
v.
CHAD CHRONISTER
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.
A petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Sheriff of Hillsborough County to investigate or bring charges against individuals for alleged fraud and breach of contract. The court dismissed the petition, holding that mandamus cannot be used to compel discretionary law enforcement decisions and that the petition failed to allege a specific, non-discretionary legal duty.
The court held that the petition for writ of mandamus must be dismissed because: (1) mandamus is available only to enforce established legal rights, not to establish them; (2) the petition failed to allege a specific, indisputable, non-discretionary legal duty; and (3) courts cannot issue a writ of mandamus requiring a law enforcement agency to investigate alleged crimes.
[1] A petition for a writ of mandamus must allege a clear legal right to the requested action, an indisputable legal duty on the part of the respondent, and the absence of an…
[2] A writ of mandamus may not be used to establish a legal right; it is available only to enforce an established legal right.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A party petitioning for a writ of mandamus must establish a clear legal right to performance of the act requested, an indisputable legal duty, and no adequate remedy at law.”
Establishes the three-part test for obtaining mandamus relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner, acting individually and on behalf of Solid Solution, LLC, filed a petition for writ of mandamus against Chad Chronister, Sheriff of Hillsb…
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 Discretionary Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
individually and on behalf of SOLID SOLUTION, LLC,
Petitioner,
CASE NO.: 25-CA-004316 vs. DIVISION: C CHAD CHRONISTER in his official capacity as Sheriff of Hillsborough County,
Respondent. _______________________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner’s May 9, 2025 Petition for Writ of Mandamus seeking a writ to compel Respondent to investigate or bring charges against Dustin Seyersdahl and Onyx Elite with regard to alleged fraud and breach of contract.
Mandamus is the mechanism by which officials can be compelled to perform lawful, ministerial duties. See Eichelberger v. Brueckheimer, 613 So. 2d 1372, 1373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). “A party petitioning for a writ of mandamus must establish a clear legal right to performance of the act requested, an indisputable legal duty, and no adequate remedy at law.” Radford v. Brock, 914 So. 2d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (internal citations omitted). When receiving a petition for a writ of mandamus, the trial court’s “initial task is assessing the petition to determine whether it is facially sufficient. If it is not facially sufficient, the court may dismiss the petition.” Id. Mandamus is available only to “enforce an established legal right ... not to establish that right.” Miami-Dade Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. An Accountable Miami-Dade, 208 So. 3d 724, 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (internal citations omitted). “A ministerial duty or act is one where there is no room for the exercise of discretion, and the performance being required is directed by law.” Polley v. Gardner, 98 So. 3d 648, 649 (Fla.1st DCA 2012) (internal citations omitted). Petitioner asserts that Respondent has a ministerial duty “to enforce state criminal laws and uphold fiduciary duties of public office.” However, the Petition 05/13/2025 04:00:39 Morales, 388 So. 3d 1018, 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (finding that the court may not issue a writ of mandamus requiring a law enforcement agency to investigate alleged crimes). The Court finds that the Petition is not facially sufficient. ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus is hereby DISMISSED.
ORDERED in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, on the date imprinted with the Judge’s signature.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Radford v. Brock, 914 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Eichelberger v. Brueckheimer, 613 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Gordon Polley, M.D., & N. Fla. Surgeons, P.A. v. Gardner, 98 So. 3d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Miami-Dade Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs v. AN Accountable Miami-Dade, 208 So. 3d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Evgeny Ryzhov v. Morales, 388 So. 3d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)