C. ELVIN FELTNER, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
COLUMBIA PICTURES TELEVISION, INC., RESPONDENT
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.
Petitioner sought mandamus relief to vacate a Florida domesticated California judgment after the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the underlying California damage judgment on the grounds that petitioner was entitled to a jury trial on damages. The court denied the mandamus petition, finding no ministerial duty requiring vacation and noting that subsequent enforcement efforts were based on petitioner's contemptuous conduct rather than the reversed damage award.
The trial court did not have a ministerial duty to vacate the domesticated judgment, and mandamus relief was not appropriate. The court noted that subsequent enforcement judgments were based on petitioner's contemptuous conduct, which petitioner did not challenge, and that nothing indicated the trial court was permitting execution on the reversed damage award itself.
[1] Mandamus relief is not available to compel a trial court to perform a duty that is not ministerial.
[2] A motion to vacate a judgment under Rule 1.540(b) is not necessarily reviewable by writ of mandamus.
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“We deny petitioner's request for mandamus having concluded that the trial court's denial of the motion to vacate did not involve a ministerial duty for which there was no appellate remedy.”
Establishes the primary holding that mandamus relief is not available because there is no ministerial duty requiring vacation and other appellate remedies exist.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA California final damage judgment against petitioner was domesticated in Florida. The parties entered into a 'Stipulation and Agreement' permitting s…
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 Contemptuous Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We deny petitioner’s request for mandamus having concluded that the trial court’s denial of the motion to vacate did not involve a ministerial duty for which there was no appellate remedy.
This case involves a domesticated California final damage judgment and the parties post-judgment “Stipulation And Agreement” pending appeal of that judgment. The “Stipulation” permitted specified execution. During the execution process in Florida, the United States Supreme Court reversed the California judgment. Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340, 118 S.Ct. 1279, 140 L.Ed.2d 438 (1998). The Court concluded that petitioner was entitled to a jury trial on damages. Hence the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
While petitioner moved to vacate the Florida domesticated judgment in light of the Court’s reversal, he did not seek appellate review in this court of the order denying relief. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b); Fla. R.App.P. 9.130(5). We would not necessarily reverse even if we were to review the trial court’s decision.
Of critical importance in this case is that several of the subsequent execution orders and judgments entered by the trial court below were based on petitioner’s contemptuous conduct in response to respondent’s enforcement efforts in accordance with the parties’ “Stipulation” and security agreement. Petitioner did not challenge the validity of that “Stipulation” in his motion to vacate.
At this point there is nothing to indicate that the trial court is permitting respondent to execute on the damage award within the domesticated California judgment which was reversed by the Court. Rather, the enforcement efforts appear to concern the Florida trial court’s judgments and orders premised on petitioner’s contemptuous conduct. Petitioner has not met his burden in this mandamus proceeding to demonstrate that the trial court was required to vacate those judgments. See generally Joannou v. Corsini, 543 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
We therefore deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
STONE, C.J., GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1998)
- Joannou v. Corsini, 543 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)