NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION F/K/A SANDOZ PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, DOING BUSINESS IN FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
CONNIE CARNOTO, RENE CARNOTO, HER HUSBAND, CELINA POY-WING, M.D., CELINA POY-WING, M.D., P.A., ALL WOMEN'S OB/GYN GROUP, INC., AND ALISON CLARKE-DESOUZA, M.D., JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, 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.
Novartis Pharmaceuticals sought mandamus and certiorari relief to challenge a trial court order referring Sunshine in Litigation Act issues to a special master without obtaining consent from all parties. The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted the mandamus petition, holding that trial courts cannot refer issues to special masters without consent of both sides, but dismissed the certiorari petition for failure to demonstrate irreparable harm.
The court granted the mandate, holding that trial courts cannot refer issues to a special master without the consent of both parties. The court rejected respondents' arguments that Novartis waived the issue or invited error. The court dismissed the certiorari petition because Novartis failed to demonstrate irreparable harm as required for certiorari relief.
[1] Mandamus lies to compel a trial court to resolve issues without a special master when the trial court has referred such issues to resolution by special master without the…
[2] A reference to a master is impermissible without the consent of all parties, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490(c).
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“Mandamus lies to compel a trial court to resolve issues without a special master when the trial court has referred such issues to resolution by special master without the consent of both sides to a dispute.”
Establishes the legal standard for mandamus relief regarding special master referrals
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA Broward Circuit Court referred issues pertaining to the Sunshine in Litigation Act, specifically Section 69.081, Florida Statutes, to a special mast…
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 Objections To Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING, REHEARING EN BANC AND/OR CERTIFICATION TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
PER CURIAM.
We grant petitioner’s motion for rehearing, deny rehearing en banc and/or certification to the Florida Supreme Court, withdraw our prior opinion, and substitute the following in its place.
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation has filed this petition for writ of mandamus and certiorari following a Broward Circuit Court order which denied its motion to limit the scope of referral of issues to a special master. In particular, the trial court referred issues pertaining to the Sunshine in Litigation Act [Sunshine Act], specifically Section 69.081, Florida Statutes, to a special master, and ruled that a determination would have to be made on Sunshine Act issues before the trial court would rule on petitioner’s discovery objections in a pending products liability lawsuit. Petitioner Novartis argued that it did not consent to this delegation of Sunshine Act issues to the special master, and that the trial court erred in deciding to defer ruling on petitioner’s discovery objections until resolution of the Sunshine Act issues.
We grant the petition for writ of mandamus but dismiss the petition for certiorari.
Mandamus lies to compel a trial court to resolve issues without a special master when the trial court has referred such issues to resolution by special master without the consent of both sides to a dispute. See, e.g., Pesut v. Miller, 773 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Hanor v. Hinckley, 584 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Taylor v. Taylor, 569 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Bathurst v. Turner, 533 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). These authorities are based on rule 1.490(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that no reference shall be made to a master without the consent of the parties.
We find that the record shows that petitioner did not consent to referral of the Sunshine in Litigation Act issues to the special master. We reject respondents’ argument that petitioner waived the issue or invited error in the referral, and therefore grant mandamus.
Petitioner also argues for certiorari to quash the same order because it provided that the trial court would resolve pretrial public hazard issues raised rather than defer hearing them until after resolution of the pending products liability lawsuit. For certiorari to lie, petitioners must demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of law which causes irreparable harm. Bared & Co., Inc. v. McGuire, 670 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). In this case, we find petitioner failed to show irreparable harm.
We find petitioner’s remaining points to be without merit and decline to entertain the broad range of constitutional challenges to the trial court’s order and Sunshine Act advanced in one of the amicus briefs filed in this court. We find those challenges to be premature at best. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS GRANTED; PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI DISMISSED.
DELL, WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garcia v. Garcia, 958 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…her request as one for a writ of mandamus. See Christ v. Christ, 939 So. 2d 256, 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)(timely objection to a magistrate referral may be raised through a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition); Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Carnoto, 798 So. 2d 22, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(“Mandamus lies to compel a trial court to resolve issues without a special master when the trial court has referred such issues to resolution by special master without the consent of both sides to a dispute.”); Taylor v. Tayl…
-
Campbell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 204 So. 3d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…nsufficient to remedy the right to not be subjected to trial in violation of the timing requirements of rule 1.440. Id. Petitioners argue that mandamus has been used to enforce other mandatory procedural rules. See Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Carnoto, 798 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (granting mandamus to enforce compliance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490, which precludes reference of a matter to a magistrate without the consent of the parties); Hicks v. Chamberlin, 710 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 199…
-
Lewis v. Swezy, 866 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…required before a hearing can be referred to a general master, granted the petition, and reversed the order of referral. See also Lunger v. Hinck- [*1250] ley, 572 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (following Taylor); Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Carnoto, 798 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (citing Taylor and observing, “[mjandamus lies to compel a trial court to resolve issues without a special master when the trial court has referred such issues to resolution by special master without the consent of both sides to…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Bared & Co., Inc. v. McGUIRE, 670 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- State v. Johnson, 533 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- State v. Wayda, 533 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Hanor v. The Honorable Harry G. Hinckley, Jr., 584 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Pesut v. Miller, 773 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 569 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Jenkins v. State, 569 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)