FIRST PARADEE, LTD., A TEXAS CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
STEVEN JONES, TRUSTEE; RONALD C. FRANCISCO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE; H. QUILLIAN JONES, JR.; ROGER D. SCOTT; SAUNDRA SCOTT; OAK TREE LIMITED APARTMENTS, LTD.; JOSEPH K. ISLEY, JR.; MICHAEL ECHOLS; SUZANNE PLES-SAS; DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; AND LEE COUNTY GARBAGE COLLECTION PROGRAM, 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.
First Paradee sought certiorari review to prevent disclosure of documents regarding the price it paid for a mortgage and promissory note in a deficiency judgment case. The court dismissed the petition because First Paradee failed to demonstrate the irreparable injury required for certiorari relief.
The petition for certiorari is dismissed because First Paradee did not establish irreparable injury, which is required for certiorari relief. Discovery of irrelevant materials does not necessarily cause irreparable harm, and First Paradee failed to show that production would cause material harm that could not be remedied on appeal.
[1] Certiorari review of an order overruling an objection to a discovery request is unavailable when the petitioner fails to establish irreparable injury.
[2] The discovery of irrelevant materials does not necessarily cause irreparable harm sufficient to warrant certiorari relief.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the amount paid by an assignee for an otherwise enforceable debt is legally irrelevant to the issue of whether the assignee is entitled to a deficiency judgment”
First Paradee's legal argument that purchase price should not matter in deficiency judgment cases, cited from Ahmad v. Cobb Corner
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFirst Paradee foreclosed on property securing a mortgage and pursued a deficiency judgment against Plessas and others. Plessas requested documents rel…
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 Confidential Business Information cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
First Paradee, Ltd., seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order overruling its objection to Suzanne Plessas’ request to produce documents. We dismiss the petition because First Paradee did not establish irreparable injury as required for certiorari relief.
After First Paradee foreclosed on property secured by a mortgage, it pursued a deficiency judgment against Plessas and others. Plessas’ request to produce sought documents relating to the amount paid by First Paradee for the mortgage and a promissory note (the loan documents). First Paradee objected that the requested information was irrelevant. At a hearing on the objection, First Paradee cited Ahmad v. Cobb Comer, Inc., 762 So. 2d 944, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), which held “that the amount paid by an assignee for an otherwise enforceable debt is legally irrelevant to the issue of whether the assignee is entitled to a deficiency judgment.”
In response, Plessas argued that First Paradee buys distressed properties and mortgages that are problematic. She claimed that the requested information would establish that First Paradee purchased the loan documents at a substantially discounted price because it was aware there would be problems enforcing the loan documents against her. She also argued that First Paradee suffered no loss as a result of the foreclosure sale and was not entitled to a deficiency judgment or, at a minimum, that the purchase price would have a bearing on the deficiency amount.
The trial court overruled First Paradee’s objection to the discovery. First Paradee then filed a motion for rehearing/reconsideration again asserting that the requested discovery was irrelevant. It also filed an affidavit asserting that the purchase price and how First Paradee valued the loan documents was confidential and proprietary information that, if disclosed, would harm its business. Before the trial court ruled on the motion, First Paradee filed its petition for writ of certiorari in this court. We cannot consider the affidavit and the argument as to confidentiality and possible harm because they were not presented to the trial court before it entered the order under review. See Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985); Patterson v. Weathers, 476 So. 2d 1294, 1296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
Even if the information sought by Ples-sas is irrelevant to the deficiency claim, the discovery of irrelevant materials does not necessarily cause irreparable harm. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla.1995). In order for First Paradee to obtain relief by certiorari, the record must reveal irreparable harm. See Tapp Telecom, Inc. v. Atkins, 763 So. 2d 1197, 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Because First Paradee did not establish that production of the requested information would cause material harm that would continue through the remainder of the trial court’s proceedings and could not be adequately remedied on appeal, we dismiss the petition. See Langston, 655 So. 2d at 94.
Petition dismissed.
ALTENBERND and GREEN, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cap. ONE, N.A. v. Forbes, 34 So. 3d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…rder on review does not necessarily cause irreparable harm by allowing discovery of what the Bank claims to be irrelevant materials. See Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Vreeland, 973 So. 2d 668, 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (citing First Paradee, Ltd. v. Jones, 828 So. 2d 483, 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). Thus, certiorari jurisdiction is improper. We dismiss this portion of the Bank’s petition. Manuals Specified in Request 10 The Bank argues that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by requiring…
-
Desmond F. Ballard and Niles B. Whitten v. Bank of Am., 249 So. 3d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
-
Foeley v. State, 869 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…w his plea on these grounds in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(Z). Thus, the court did not reach the merits of this claim. Apparently, the circuit court was not alerted to this court’s opinion in Foeley v. State, 828 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), in which we affirmed the order denying [*27] Foeley’s earlier rule 3.170(i) motion without prejudice to his filing a facially sufficient motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We specifically stated that “[i…
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
- Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1985)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1995)
- Topp Telecom, Inc. v. Atkins, 763 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Bashar Ahmad v. Cobb Corner, Inc., 762 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Ernestine Patterson v. Matilda Weathers, 476 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)