GEORGE O. LAMOTHE, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT L. SELLARS, ESQ., EQUIFAX INC., CIGNA INSURANCE COMPANY, AND SELLARS, SUPRAN, COLE, MARION & BACHI, P.A., APPELLEES
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.
Florida appellate court dismissed appeals from trial court orders requiring plaintiff to avoid contact with opposing counsel and their offices, holding such protective orders are case management orders not appealable as injunctions.
Orders requiring a party to avoid contact with opposing counsel and their offices are case management orders, not injunctions, and are therefore not appealable under the non-final appeal rule for injunctions.
[1] Protective orders requiring a party to avoid contact with opposing counsel and their offices are case management orders controlling trial proceedings rather than injuncti…
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 intelligenceAppellant Lamothe, represented by counsel, went to opposing counsel Sellars' law firm offices without his attorney. Defendants filed motions for staya…
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 Non-Final Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
Appellee Sellars and his law firm represent the defendants in one case in which appellant is the plaintiff, and they are the defendants in another ease in which appellant is the plaintiff. Following an incident which occurred when appellant, who was represented by counsel, went to Sellars’ firm’s offices without his counsel, the defendants filed a “motion for stayaway order” in both cases. The trial court granted the motions and ordered appellant to have no contact with the defendants, except through counsel, and not to go within a certain distance of Sellars’ offices for the duration of the ease.
Appellant seeks review of these two orders by non-final appeal, arguing that we have jurisdiction under rule 9.130(a)(3)(B), which authorizes non-final review of orders granting injunctions. Appel-lee responds that these are not injunctions, but rather are protective or case management orders being used by the court to control the proceedings before it. We agree with appellee. These orders are not related to relief sought in plaintiffs complaints. They are no more appealable as injunctions than orders compelling production, orders compelling attendance, or orders compelling behavior of parties in a trial. Nor would these particular orders be reviewable by certiorari, because they do not depart from the essential requirements of law.
We therefore dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pescod v. Wells Rd. Veterinary Med. Ctr., Inc., 748 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…dismissed because the order is nothing more than a protective order, entered pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c), and that such interlocutory orders are not appealable. It relies principally upon the decision in Lamothe v. Sellars, 695 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The majority agrees, and dismisses the appeal. It seems to me that Lamothe, upon which appellee and the majority rely, is clearly distinguishable. In that case, the order under review merely directed the parties to have no cont…1 / 2
-
Clevens v. Omni Healthcare, Inc., 83 So. 3d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…binding and enforceable, nothing more. The order does direct the parties to meet to negotiate further, which is more akin to a case management order regulating the conduct of the parties before the court, than an injunction. See Lamothe v. Sellars, 695 So. 2d 1259, 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). DISMISSED. PALMER and MONACO, JJ., concur. . Although this Court’s motions panel explicitly allowed the case to proceed as an appeal from a nonfinal order in the nature of an injunction under Florida Rule of Appellate P…
-
Fuller v. Sandler, 232 So. 3d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…iary hearing on the former husband’s motion. Because the order appealed is a” non-final, non'-appeal-able order, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the trial court to conduct the evidentiary hearing. See Lamothe v. Sellars, 695 So. 2d 1259, 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding that stay away orders are not injunctions, but rather “protective or-case management orders being used by the court to controhthe proceedings before it,” and therefore, Stay away orders are not reviewable pursuant…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence