MARINER HEALTH CARE, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
POLLY Y. GRIFFITH, ETC., 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.
Mariner Health Care sought a writ of certiorari to overturn a trial court's order bifurcating a negligence suit from a third-party complaint against a pest control company. The Florida appellate court held that certiorari is not the appropriate remedy for interlocutory orders and that Mariner failed to demonstrate the irreparable harm necessary for extraordinary relief.
Certiorari is not the appropriate vehicle to challenge interlocutory orders and should not be used to circumvent rules limiting interlocutory appeals. Mariner failed to demonstrate that the bifurcation order constituted a departure from essential requirements of law causing irreparable injury that cannot be remedied on plenary appeal.
[1] Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that should not be used to circumvent rules limiting interlocutory appeals.
[2] To be entitled to certiorari review of a non-final order, a petitioner must demonstrate a departure from essential requirements of law causing irreparable injury that can…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“common law certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and should not be used to circumvent the rule limiting interlocutory appeals”
Establishes that certiorari cannot be used as an end-run around interlocutory appeal restrictions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEarl Dean Griffith, a resident at a nursing home owned by Mariner Health Care, was bitten by fire ants, requiring extensive medical treatment and ulti…
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 Plenary Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
This wrongful death suit alleges that nursing home owner Mariner Health Care (“Mariner”) negligently allowed fire ants to bite resident Earl Dean Griffith, requiring extensive medical care and treatment, and ultimately resulting in his death. Mariner filed a third-party complaint against the pest control company which serviced the nursing home. Upon plaintiffs’ motion, a non-final written order was entered severing the trials and providing that the trial of the third-party complaint would be set at a date after disposition of the underlying action. Mariner has filed a petition for writ of certiorari in which it argues that the trial court’s decision to bifurcate the third-party complaint was an abuse of discretion. Mariner argues that it will suffer irreparable harm as a result of the trial court’s order. Mariner has presented various arguments as to why the bifurcation was an abuse of discretion. However, the real issue is whether certiorari is the appropriate way to seek appellate relief. As explained in Belair v. Drew, 770 So. 2d 1164, 1166 (Fla.2000), common law certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and should not be used to circumvent the rule limiting interlocutory appeals. See also Wheeled Coach Industries, Inc. v. Annulis, 852 So. 2d 430, 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 essential requirements of law, causing irreparable injury which cannot be adequately remedied on plenary appeal. See Belair, supra. See also Dept. of Children and Families v. L.D., 840 So. 2d 432, 435 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). As explained in Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc., 720 So. 2d 214, 215 (Fla.1998), the judicial policy in favor of limited certiorari review of non-final orders is based on the fact that piecemeal review of such orders impedes the orderly administration of justice and serves only to delay and harass.
A departure from the essential requirements of law sufficient to justify certiorari review must be more than simple legal error. See Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So. 2d 679, 682 (Fla.2000). A district court should only grant certiorari review-when .there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885, 889 (Fla.2003); Malloy v. Gunster, Yoakley, Valdes-Fauli & Stewart, P.A., 850 So. 2d 578, 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). A district court may not review a decision under the guise of certiorari simply because it is dissatisfied with the results. Ivey, supra.
Furthermore, the inconvenience and expense of litigation after an allegedly incorrect interlocutory ruling does not constitute the kind of material harm or irreparable injury for which certiorari review is available. See, e.g., Zabawa v. Penna, 868 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc. v. Lane, 855 So. 2d 1172, 1172-1173 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Sinclair, 808 So. 2d 231, 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), rev. denied, 823 So. 2d 125 (Fla.2002).
In Smithers v. Smithers, 743 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), the court declined to grant certiorari review of an order denying bifurcation. Although agreeing the bifurcation would serve judicial economy and limit the litigants costs, the court found that there was no abuse of discretion in denying bifurcation and that the time, trouble and expense of proceeding to trial, even if error is ultimately established, was not the kind of irreparable harm that would invoke certiorari jurisdiction.-
Much of Mariner’s claim of irreparable harm is based on speculation and conjecture. In ordering bifurcation, the trial court expressly ruled that Mariner could maintain at trial that it took prudent cafe of the decedent.' Nothing in the court’s order precludes Mariner from presenting evidence regarding pest control efforts. We hold that Mariner has failed to establish entitlement to certiorari relief.
PETITION DENIED.
SHARP, W., and PALMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eyal A. Cohen v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 121 So. 3d 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…ary appeal. The inconvenience and expense of litigation after an allegedly incorrect interlocutory ruling does not constitute the kind of material harm or irreparable injury from which certiorari review is available. Mariner Health Care v. Griffith, 898 So. 2d 982, 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); see also Zabawa v. Penna, 868 So. 2d 1292-1293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (no irreparable harm found where appellant claimed he would be required to expend time and money on unnecessary arbitration). APPEAL DISMISSED. SAWAYA and…
-
Transp. Eng'g, Inc. v. Cruz, 152 So. 3d 37 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…ase — and “the inconvenience and expense of litigation after an allegedly incorrect interlocutory ruling does not constitute the kind of material harm or irreparable injury for which cer-tiorari review is available.” Mariner Health Care v. Griffith, 898 So. 2d 982, 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Here, however, TEI correctly argues that waiting until the end of the litigation to challenge the trial court’s ruling on its summary judgment motion would deprive TEI of its opportunity to have the jury consider DAB as a p…
-
Matthews v. City OF Maitland, 923 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…law because disclosure is not relevant to an issue in question and would have a chilling effect on the litigation without adequate remedy at law. See Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1100 (Fla.1987); Mariner Health Care v. Griffith, 898 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). We therefore grant certiorari and quash the trial court’s orders. Petitioners filed a two-count complaint against the City to challenge a development order that authorizes construction of a seven-story, multi-use structure that…1 / 2
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 (14 total)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Keely Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2003)
- Farren Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2000)
- Belair v. Drew, 770 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 2000)
- Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc, 720 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1998)
- Dep't OF Child. & Families v. L.D. and J.S., 840 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Wheeled Coach Indus., Inc. v. Annulis, 852 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Smithers v. Smithers, 743 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Clark v. State, 808 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Malloy v. Gunster, Yoakley, Valdes-Fauli & Stewart, P.A., 850 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- S.H. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 769 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)