BENSONHURST DRYWALL, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
SAUL LEDESMA, RESPONDENT

Fla. 4th DCA | 1991-07-24
No. 91-1736
DELL, STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.
583 So. 2d 1094 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1991) Positive Treatment
Cited by 25 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed as being untimely. The petitioner filed a motion for protective order from certain discovery which was denied on March 7, 1991. That order was not appealed. Petitioner then refused to permit the discovery at a deposition which was terminated. After an order resetting the deposition was entered, and a subpoena requesting the same documents as before was served, petitioner filed a second motion for protective order alleging essentially the same grounds as the first but in greater detail. This too was denied by the court prompting this petition.

Any petition for writ of certiorari should have been filed after the first order denying the motion for protective order. Petitioner cannot evade the time requirements of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(c) by filing successive motions addressed to the same issue. We liken this to the filing of a motion for rehearing from a non-final order which does not toll rendition. See McGee v. McGee, 487 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).

Dismissed.

DELL, STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By (14 total)

  • State v. Travis, 971 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
    …w of an order denying a motion for a protective order by filing a successive motion seeking the same relief and seeking certiorari review that is timely only with respect to the order denying the second motion); Bensonhurst Drywall, Inc. v. Ledesma, 583 So. 2d 1094, 1094-95 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (concluding that petitioner may not evade the time requirements for seeking cer-tiorari review by filing a second motion in the trial court raising issues identical to those addressed in an earlier order). . The statute…
  • Am. Sightseeing Tours, Inc. v. Gerda Jackson, 634 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
  • Bainter v. League OF Women Voters OF Fla., 150 So. 3d 1115 (Fla. 2014)
    …in the trial court that they object to producing the same documents — all of which date back to the subpoenas that were legally served in September and November of 2012 encompassing these disputed documents. Cf. Bensonhurst Drywall, Inc. v. Ledesma, 583 So. 2d 1094, 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (after a party did not appeal the denial of a motion for a protective order from certain discovery but then refused to permit the discovery at a deposition and filed a second motion for a protective order, the district cour…

Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw