JACK CARUSO, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
SUPER VISION INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND BRENT KINGSTONE, 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.
Appellants who were defendants in a breach of contract action appealed non-final orders finding them in civil contempt and striking their pleadings as sanctions. The appellate court converted the notice of appeal to a petition for writ of certiorari and denied relief, holding that civil contempt orders are not appealable as of right and that any error is correctable on direct appeal.
The orders are not appealable under Rule 9.130 as they do not determine the right to immediate possession of property or grant/modify an injunction. Certiorari relief is not warranted because any error in the contempt and sanction orders is correctable on direct appeal, and therefore the requirements for certiorari relief are not satisfied.
[1] Orders finding a party in civil contempt and striking their pleadings are generally not appealable as non-final orders under rule 9.130 of the Florida Rules of Appellate…
[2] A notice of appeal filed for a non-appealable order may be treated as a petition for writ of certiorari.
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“in order to be granted certiorari relief, appellant must establish that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law, the departure resulted in irreparable harm, and the harm is not correctable on direct appeal”
Sets forth the three-part Beekie standard that must be satisfied to obtain certiorari relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants were defendants in a breach of contract action. The trial court entered a temporary injunction prohibiting appellants from removing materia…
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 Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 cases and more on FLexlaw
PALMER, J.
Appellants, who were defendants below in this breach of contract action, appeal the trial court’s non-final orders finding them in civil contempt and striking their pleading as a sanction therefor.
However, the orders are not appealable under rule 9.130 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Therefore, we must deem the appellants’ notice of appeal to be a petition for writ of certiorari. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.040(c). Having done so, we deny the petition since any error occasioned by the trial court’s orders is correctable on direct appeal. See Beekie v. Morgan, 751 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (explaining that in order to be granted certiorari relief, appellant must establish that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law, the departure resulted in irreparable harm, and the harm is not correctable on direct appeal).
Appellants were found in civil contempt for failing to abide by the terms of a temporary injunction entered against them. More specifically, the trial court had enjoined the appellants from removing various materials from Florida pending disposition of the lawsuit but they violated this injunction by removing said material to China.
The trial court found such violation to constitute contempt of court and subsequently struck appellants’ responsive pleadings as a sanction therefor. Appellants challenge both the contempt order and the sanction order, asserting that they are appealable, non-final orders pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. Specifically, they maintain that the orders either determine the right to immediate possession of property or granted or modified an injunction.
We disagree.
The record establishes that the trial court’s orders are not appealable under rule 9.130. See Davis v. State, 758 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (explaining that prejudgment civil contempt orders are more properly reviewed by certiorari); see also Sears v. Sears, 617 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Stewart v. Mussoline, 487 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Compare Alves v. Barnett Mortgage Co., 688 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
As for certiorari review, we conclude that such relief is not warranted under the facts of this ease because the issues raised in this proceeding are reviewable on direct appeal. Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is denied, without a determination on the merits, since any error can be corrected on direct appeal.
PETITION DENIED. TORPY, J., concurs.
GRIFFIN, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
GRIFFIN, J.,
concurring specially.
This case is complicated by the fact that the trial court, based on the stricken pleadings, entered what purports to be a “final judgment” during the pendency of this proceeding. I believe we should decide this case on its merits. It is my view that the trial court acted within its discretion and there was no departure from the essential requirements of law. Accordingly, I agree the petition should be denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ST. Paul Guardian INS. Co. v. Bukauskas, 867 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…292 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). We conclude that certiorari relief is not appropriate under the facts of this case because the issues raised in this proceeding are renewable on direct ap [*1269] peal. See, e.g., Caruso v. Super Vision International, Inc., 845 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, alternatively deny the petition and cancel oral argument. APPEAL DISMISSED. PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.…
-
Juravin v. DCS Real Est. Invs., LLC (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)…November 4, 2019 order finding Appellant in indirect criminal contempt. As to the trial court’s October 23, 2019 order, we treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari and dismiss the petition. See, e.g., Caruso v. Super Vision Int’l, Inc., 845 So. 2d 947, 948 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (holding contemnors were not entitled to certiorari relief because any errors occasioned by civil contempt orders for failing to abide by the terms of a temporary injunction were correctable on direct appeal). AFFIRMED, in…
-
Zeinab Abbas (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2017)…that her motion to strike was intended to prevent. Contrary to Abbas’s position, we determine that any error that might be present in the trial court’s order may be readily corrected on direct appeal. See Caruso v. Super Vision International, Inc., 845 So. 2d 947, 948 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Therefore, we conclude that appellate review by certiorari at the present time is inappropriate. See Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812, 822 (Fla. 2004) (“Limited certiorari review is based upon the ra…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Herman v. Herman, 751 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Stewart v. Mussoline, 487 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Sears v. Sears, 617 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Rediker v. State, 688 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Alves v. Barnett Mortg. Co. & J.J. Kislak Mortg. Corp., 688 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Merlan Davis v. State, 758 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)