ALI INVESTMENTS, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENT
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.
Petitioner's writ of certiorari challenging a trial court's sanction limiting witness testimony was denied because petitioner failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, which is a prerequisite to invoking district court certiorari jurisdiction.
A petitioner seeking certiorari review of an interlocutory order must establish irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on direct appeal.
[1] Irreparable harm is a jurisdictional prerequisite to certiorari review of interlocutory orders, and errors in pretrial orders limiting testimony in civil cases are remedi…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“it is settled law that, as a condition precedent to invoking a district court's certiorari jurisdiction, the petitioning party must establish that it has suffered an irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on direct appeal”
Court explaining the jurisdictional requirement for certiorari review
Ali Investments was sanctioned by the trial court with an order prohibiting it from calling witnesses at trial other than defendants and one plaintiff…
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 Disclosure Of Witnesses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ali Investments, Inc., (“Petitioner”), seeks a writ of certiorari quashing a trial court order prohibiting Petitioner “from calling any witnesses at trial other than the Defendants and one representative from Plaintiff.” The order was entered as a sanction for Petitioner’s willful disregard of multiple discovery requests and court orders compelling responses to discovery, for non-compliance with the pre-trial deadlines for disclosure of witnesses, and for failure to comply with other aspects of the court’s pre-trial order. Although it appears that the trial court acted within its discretion in imposing the sanctions about which Petitioner complains, we do not reach this issue. “[I]t is settled law that, as a condition precedent to invoking a district court’s certiorari jurisdiction, the petitioning party must establish that it has suffered an irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on direct appeal.” Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc., 720 So. 2d 214, 215 (Fla.1998).
Here, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it will suffer irreparable harm if the interlocutory order limiting testimony at trial is permitted to stand. See, e.g., Sardinas v. Lagares, 805 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (recognizing any error in pretrial order precluding testimony in civil case can be remedied on direct appeal); Siegel v. Abramowitz, 309 So. 2d 234, 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (holding interlocutory orders are reviewable by certiorari only “when it clearly appears there is no full, adequate and complete remedy available by appeal after final judgment”).
PETITION DENIED.
PLEUS, C.J., GRIFFIN and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bill Kasper Constr. Co., Inc. v. Morrison, 93 So. 3d 1061 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…0, 852 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). We disagree. This court has previously denied certiorari relief in similar circumstances due to the availability of post-judgment appellate relief. For example, in Ali Investments, Inc. v. First American Title Insurance, 929 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), this court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the harm caused by an order limiting testimony at trial could not be remedied on final appeal. Similarly, in Sardinas v. Lagares, 805 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2001)…
-
Tawanna Johnson v. Howard, 9 So. 3d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…[*778] PER CURIAM. DENIED. See Ali Investments, Inc. v. First American Title Insurance, 929 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). BARFIELD, WEBSTER, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc, 720 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1998)
- Humphrey v. Seminole Cnty. Court, 309 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Sardinas v. Claridania Lagares, 805 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)