BANCO INDUSTRIAL DE VENEZUELA, C.A., MIAMI AGENCY, ETC., AND BIV INVESTMENTS AND MANAGEMENT, INC., ETC., A/K/A/ BIV INVERSORES Y PROMOTORES, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
ESPERANZA DE SAAD AND JOSEPH BEELER, P.A., APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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.
Banco Industrial de Venezuela and BIV Investments sought to stay the mandate of the Third District Court of Appeal's decision pending review by the Florida Supreme Court. The court denied the motion to stay, finding insufficient likelihood that the Supreme Court would accept jurisdiction or that the appellants would succeed on the merits.
The motion to stay the mandate was denied because the appellants failed to satisfy the first two factors required under Rule 9.120: there was insufficient likelihood that the Florida Supreme Court would accept jurisdiction, and insufficient likelihood of ultimate success on the merits.
[1] A motion to stay a mandate pending discretionary review by the supreme court should only be granted when essential.
[2] Factors for granting a stay of mandate include the likelihood of supreme court jurisdiction acceptance, likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, likelihood of harm i…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 advisory committee was of the view that the District Courts should permit such stays only when essential. Factors to be considered are the likelihood that jurisdiction will be accepted by the Supreme Court, the likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, the likelihood of harm if no stay is granted, and the remediable quality of any such harm.”
Establishes the legal standard for evaluating motions to stay mandate under Rule 9.120.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBanco Industrial de Venezuela and BIV Investments had appealed a lower court decision and received an adverse ruling from the Third District Court of …
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 Stay Of Mandate cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motion to Stay Mandate
Appellants/Cross-Appellees/Defendants, Banco Industrial de Venezuela, C.A., Miami Agency, etc., and BIV Investments and Management, Inc., a/k/a BIV Inversores y Promotores (collectively “BIV”), have filed a notice under Rule 9.120, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure, invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court to review this Court’s decision in this matter. See Banco Industrial De Venezuela, C.A. v. de Saad, 21 So.3d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). We now address Banco Industrial’s and BIV’s Motion to Stay the Effect of, or in the Alternative, Withdraw This Court’s Mandate pending resolution of their Notice to Invoke the Discretionary Jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court.
Subsequent to this Court’s decision and the issuance of the mandate, Banco Industrial and BIV filed a notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction with the Florida Supreme Court. Pursuant to Rule 9.120, these parties have requested this Court stay or withdraw the mandate pending determination by the Florida Supreme Court. The Committee Notes to Rule 9.120 state the following concerning motions to stay mandate:
The advisory committee was of the view that the District Courts should permit such stays only when essential. Factors to be considered are the likelihood that jurisdiction will be accepted by the Supreme Court, the likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, the likelihood of harm if no stay is granted, and the remediable quality of any such harm.
After a review of this Court’s decision, and the motion and response in this matter, it appears to this Court that Banco Industrial’s and BIVs motion fails on the *260first two factors, the likelihood that the Supreme Court will accept jurisdiction and the likelihood of ultimate success on the merits.
Banco Industrial and BIV argue that the Supreme Court will accept jurisdiction claiming conflict between our decision and decisions of certain other District Courts of Appeal. Upon review of those decisions we, again, do not find conflict. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there is not a likelihood that the Supreme Court will accept jurisdiction.
Motion to Stay Mandate is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vazquez v. Ailyn M. Rebaza Smith, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D293 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Banco Indus. de Venezuela v. de Saad, 21 So. 3d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)