CHAMPAIGN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST, PETITIONER,
v.
SOS INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL., 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.
Certiorari is not available to review interlocutory orders denying motions for judgment on the pleadings, as the aggrieved party has a remedy on appeal.
Champaign National Bank and Trust sought certiorari review of an order denying its renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings.…
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 Judgment On The Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
Champaign National Bank and Trust seeks certiorari review of an interlocutory order denying Champaign’s renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings. We deny the petition for writ of certiorari.
Champaign argues that irreparable harm exists in this case to justify certiorari review based on an alleged pattern of harassment litigation to coerce Champaign to settle thus placing a “special burden” on Champaign. Certiorari is not generally available to review non-final interlocutory orders denying motions to dismiss or equivalent motions for judgment on the pleadings because the aggrieved party has a remedy on appeal. See Martin Johnson v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1987); H.L.O.T. Family Limited Partnership v. Magnolia Plantation Property Owners’ Ass’n, Inc. 801 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
Certiorari is not a writ of expediency and cannot be used to circumvent the non-final appeal rule. See S.H. v. Dept. of Children and Families, 769 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Hawaiian Inn of Daytona Beach, Inc. v. Snead Const. Carp., 393 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Champaign’s alleged “special burden” does not create irreparable harm to justify certiorari review. Any alleged pretrial “harassment” should be addressed to the trial court in its sound discretion to control the case below.
PETITION DENIED.
THOMPSON, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mariner Health Care v. Polly Y. Griffith, 898 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…0, 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), rev. dismissed, 871 So. 2d 876 (Fla.2004). Stated differently!, certiorari is not a writ of expediency to be used to avoid the limitations on interlocutory appeals. See Champaign Nat. Bank & Trust v. SOS Industries, Inc., 847 So. 2d 1164, 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); S.H. v. Dept. of Children and Families, 769 So. 2d 452, 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). To be entitled to certiorari review of a non-final order, a petitioner must demonstrate that the trial court’s order is a departure from the…
-
Driscoll v. Knellinger (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)…129, 1132 (Fla. 2011) (quoting Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812, 822 (Fla. 2004)). "Certiorari is not a writ of expediency and cannot be used to circumvent the non-final appeal rule." Champaign Nat'l Bank & Tr. v. SOS Indus., 847 So. 2d 1164, 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Thus, "[c]ertiorari is not generally available to review non-final interlocutory orders denying motions to dismiss or equivalent motions for judgment on the pleadings because the aggrieved party has a remedy on appeal."…
Authorities Cited
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)
- The Hawaiian INN OF Daytona Beach Inc. v. Snead Constr. Corp., 393 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- S.H. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 769 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Ondina Williams v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 801 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- The H.L.O.T. Fam. Ltd. P'ship & U.I.L. Fam. Ltd. P'ship v. Magnolia Plantation Prop. Owners' Ass'n, Inc., 801 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)