BOARDWALK AND BASEBALL, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; COLERIDGE CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION; BOARDWALK LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; AND BRENDA NESTOR, AN INDIVIDUAL, PETITIONERS,
v.
CITY CENTER BONDS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; CITY CENTER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT; MARCO LOFFREDO; DERRICK DOUGLAS; DAVID WEYCHERT; MICHAEL WADLEY; AND GREGORY ARNONE, 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.
Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash a circuit court order compelling disclosure of emails they claimed were attorney-client privileged and establishing the respondent's entitlement to attorneys' fees as sanctions. The court dismissed the petition as moot regarding the discovery issue and for lack of jurisdiction regarding the attorneys' fees issue.
The petition was dismissed as moot regarding the discovery issue because the emails had already been obtained by the respondent from a third party. The petition was also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction regarding the attorneys' fees determination because a pretrial order awarding fees as a sanction does not demonstrate material harm or irreparable injury warranting certiorari review.
[1] A petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of a discovery order compelling disclosure of documents is moot when the documents have already been turned over to the r…
[2] A petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of a pretrial order awarding attorneys' fees as a sanction is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction when the determination o…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“where respondents were already in possession of records which were subject of petition for writ of certiorari, action was moot”
Establishes the mootness doctrine applied to dismiss the discovery portion of the petition
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe circuit court issued an order compelling disclosure of various emails that petitioners asserted were protected by attorney-client privilege. The o…
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 Irreparable Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
The petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to quash the circuit court’s order which compels disclosure of various emails that petitioners assert are protected by attorney-client privilege and which establishes respondent, City Center Bonds, LLC’s (CCB) entitlement to attorneys’ fees as sanctions under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(a)(4). CCB asserted in its response that the challenged emails have already been turned over to them by a third party pursuant to the circuit court’s order. Petitioners did not respond to this assertion in their reply. We therefore dismiss the portion of the petition dealing with the discovery issue as moot. See Cicenia v. Mitey Mite Race Tracks, Inc., 415 So.2d 128, 129-30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (holding that where respondents were already in possession of records which were subject of petition for writ of certiorari, action was moot); see also Martineau v. Banco Popular N. Am., 77 So.3d 925, 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (Casanueva, J., concurring) (noting that petition was being dismissed as moot because respondent had successfully obtained challenged documents since issuance of circuit court’s order). We dismiss the portion of the petition regarding attorneys’ fees for lack of jurisdiction. See Rydell v. Rutter, 834 So.2d 883, 884-85 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (concluding that certiorari review of a pretrial order awarding fees as a sanction was inappropriate at that time as the determination of entitlement “does not in itself demonstrate material harm or irreparable injury”); see also Gates McVey Capital Grp., L.L.C. v. Fortune Fin. Servs., Inc., 893 So.2d 644, 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (dismissing portion of petition for writ of certiorari which determined respondent’s entitlement to fees as sanctions under rule 1.380(a)(4)).
DAVIS, C.J, and NORTHCUTT and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Truehill v. State, 211 So. 3d 930 (Fla. 2017)…ustained (step 3). Id. at 764 (footnotes omitted). “In deciding whether the proffered race-neutral reason for the peremptory strike is a pretext, the Court should focus on the genuineness of the explanation, not the reasonableness.” Poole v. State, 161 So. 3d 402, 410 (Fla. 2014). Although reasonableness is a factor to be considered in determining the genuineness of the explanation, the Court should also consider all relevant circumstances surrounding the strike, including “the racial make-up of the venire;…
-
Parrish v. RL Regi Fin., LLC, 194 So. 3d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…on is not reviewable by certiorari where it has not been reduced to a fixed amount because the determination of entitlement does [*572] not itself establish material harm or irreparable injury. See Boardwalk & Baseball, Inc. v. City Ctr. Bonds, LLC, 161 So. 3d 402, 402 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Rydell v. Rutter, 834 So. 2d 883, 884-85 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).…
-
Ludwigsen v. Ludwigsen (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…d amount because the determination of entitlement does not itself establish material harm or irreparable injury." Parrish v. RL Regi Fin., LLC, 194 So. 3d 571, 571 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); see also Boardwalk & Baseball, Inc. v. City Ctr. Bonds, LLC, 161 So. 3d 402, 402 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Thus we dismiss the portion of the father's petition that addresses the award of attorneys' fees to the mother for lack of jurisdiction. See Parrish, 194 So. 3d at 572; Boardwalk & Baseball, Inc., 161 So. 3d at 402. We als…
Authorities Cited
- Rydell v. Gorham Rutter, Jr., 834 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Levy Watson v. State, 415 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Cicenia v. Mitey Mite Race Tracks, Inc., 415 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Gates McVEY Cap. Grp., L.L.C. v. Robinson, 893 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Martineau v. Banco Popular N. Am., 77 So. 3d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)