VENUS LABORATORIES, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, AND E. VAN VLAHAKIS, INDIVIDUALLY, PETITIONERS,
v.
FRED KATZ AND ADELE KATZ, HIS WIFE, 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.
Venus Laboratories and Van Vlahakis sought certiorari review of an interlocutory order denying their motion to amend their answer to include a compulsory counterclaim. The court denied the petition and receded from prior precedent, holding that certiorari is not available for such interlocutory orders because plenary appeal after final judgment provides an adequate remedy.
Certiorari is not available to review an interlocutory order denying a motion to file an amended answer/counterclaim. Plenary appeal after final judgment is the adequate remedy, and any reversible error on such appeal would allow petitioners to litigate their proposed counterclaim.
[1] Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and should not be used to circumvent the interlocutory appeal rule which authorizes appeal from only a few types of non-final orders…
[2] Certiorari will lie only in limited circumstances where the nonfinal order departs from the essential requirements of the law and causes material injury to the petitioner…
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“Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and should not be used to circumvent the interlocutory appeal rule which authorizes appeal from only a few types of non-final orders.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that certiorari cannot be used to sidestep the limited interlocutory appeal rules.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVenus Laboratories and E. Van Vlahakis sought to amend their answer in a lawsuit to add a compulsory counterclaim. The trial court denied their motion…
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 Adequate Remedy On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
JORGENSON, Judge.
Venus Laboratories, Inc. and E. Van Vla-hakis petition for certiorari review of a nonfinal order denying their motion to amend their answer to include a compulsory counterclaim. Because the interlocutory order is reviewable on plenary appeal, we deny the petition for certiorari review.1
We recede from our decision in Romish v. Albo, 291 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), and join our sister courts to hold that certiorari is not available to review an interlocutory order denying a motion to file an amended answer/counterclaim. Sciabbarrasi v. Uddo, 466 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Summerlin v. Epps, 340 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
“Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and should not be used to circumvent the interlocutory appeal rule which authorizes appeal from only a few types of non-final orders.” 2 Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1098 (Fla.1987). Certiorari will lie only in limited circumstances where the nonfinal order departs from the essential requirements of the law and causes material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings. Id. at 1099. Although the trial court’s order may depart from the essential requirements of the law, it does not cause material injury to the petitioners throughout the remainder of the proceedings or leave petitioners without an adequate remedy on appeal. Accordingly, an appeal after final judgment is an adequate remedy for the order denying leave to amend. Hawaiian Inn of Daytona Beach, Inc. v. Snead Const. Corp., 393 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Summerlin v. Epps, 340 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). If reversible error is established on plenary appeal, petitioners would be entitled to litigate their proposed' counterclaim. Epps, 340 So. 2d at 1228.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for certiorari is DENIED.
. On its own motion, the court considered this case en banc for the express purpose of receding from Romish v. Albo, 291 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
. Orders denying leave to amend are not included within this rule. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baldwin v. Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc., 45 So. 3d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…rected on appeal from final judgment and 2) departed from the essential requirements of law. See Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1100 (Fla.1987); Abbey v. Patrick, 16 So. 3d 1051, 1053 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Venus Labs., Inc. v. Katz, 573 So. 2d 993, 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (on reh’g en banc). Error in the denial of a discovery motion is generally corrective on review of the final judgment; as a jurisdictional threshold, certiorari will respond only to material, irreparable harm continuing throu…
-
Majestic SUN Owners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Fla. Condos I Ltd. P'ship, 895 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…certiorari should be dismissed if there has been an insufficient showing of irreparable harm and should be denied when it is determined that an order did not depart from the essential requirements of law); see also Venus Labs., Inc. v. Katz, [*535] 573 So. 2d 993, 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Sciabbarrasi v. Uddo, 466 So. 2d 19, 20 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Hawaiian Inn of Daytona Beach Inc. v. Snead Constr. Corp., 393 So. 2d 1201, 1201-02 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). WOLF, C.J., BARFIELD and LEWIS, JJ., concur.…
-
Robaina v. Royal Marine, Inc., 576 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…Following review of this petition for writ of certiorari, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied. See Venus Lab., Inc. v. Katz, 573 So. 2d 993 (Fla.3rd DCA 1991). HUBBART, JORGENSON and GODERICH, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)
- The Hawaiian INN OF Daytona Beach Inc. v. Snead Constr. Corp., 393 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Romish v. Albo, 291 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Bella K. Schwartz v. Daniel Sepler, P.A., 466 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Summerlin v. Epps, 340 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)