GIBRALTAR PRIVATE BANK & TRUST, PETITIONER,
v.
WALTER SCHACHT, 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.
Gibraltar Private Bank & Trust sought certiorari review of a trial court order compelling deposition and disclosure of allegedly privileged information. The appellate court treated the parties' joint motion to relinquish jurisdiction as a motion for extension of time and granted it, allowing the trial court to proceed with entering a stipulated amended order without requiring appellate adjudication of the underlying certiorari petition.
The court declined to relinquish jurisdiction but treated the motion as a request for a forty-five day extension of time for the respondent to file his response to the certiorari petition. The court held that filing a certiorari petition challenging an interlocutory discovery order does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction, and absent a stay, the trial court retains the ability to proceed and potentially modify its earlier non-final order.
[1] A party's filing of a certiorari petition challenging an interlocutory discovery order does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction.
[2] Absent a stay, the filing of a certiorari petition challenging an interlocutory discovery order has no effect on the lower court's ability to proceed with the case.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“a party's filing of a certiorari petition challenging an interlocutory discovery order does not divest the trial court of juris [diction].”
Establishes that trial courts retain jurisdiction over non-final discovery orders even when a certiorari petition is pending.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn March 2017, the trial court entered a non-final order compelling Gibraltar Private Bank & Trust's corporate representative to be deposed. Gibraltar…
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 Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION TO RELINQUISH JURISDICTION
The parties move this Court to relinquish jurisdiction to allow the lower court to enter a stipulated, amended order that would vacate the trial court’s earlier order, rendering this certiorari proceeding moot. For the following reasons, we treat the motion to relinquish jurisdiction as a motion seeking an extension of time for respondent to file a response to the petition, and grant same.
In March 2017, the trial court entered a non-final order compelling the deposition of Gibraltar Private Bank & Trust’s corporate representative. Gibraltar, the defendant below, argues that the trial court’s March 2017 order requires the disclosure of privileged and protected information, Gibraltar filed a petition with this Court seeking certiorari review of the trial court’s March 2017 order.
We ordered the plaintiff, Walter Schacht, to file a response. Prior to Schacht filing any response, the parties jointly filed the instant motion with this Court requesting that we relinquish jurisdiction to allow the lower court to enter a stipulated, amended order.
We decline to adjudicate the parties’ motion to relinquish jurisdiction because the motion is unnecessary. While a trial court is without jurisdiction to vacate a non-final order which has been appealed, 1 a party’s filing of a certiorari petition challenging an interlocutory discovery order does not divest the trial court of juris*1236diction. See Curry v. State, 880 So.2d 751, 755-56 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Absent a stay, the filing of such a petition has no effect on the lower court’s ability to proceed to adjudicate the case. Id. at 756.
The parties’ motion seeks a relinquishment for forty-five days to allow the trial court to revisit its March 2017 order. In light of the above, we treat the parties’ motion as seeking a forty-five day extension of time for Schacht to file his response to Gilbratar’s petition, and grant same. If the trial court enters an amended order rendering its March 2017 order moot, then Gilbralter should simply file a notice of dismissal of its certiorari petition as contemplated in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.350(b).
Motion for extension of time granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Event Depot Corp. v. Frank, 269 So. 3d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…sycho Swing’s creator and developer. The court pointed to additional information from the Murray deposition 2 While the petition was pending, the trial court amended its order on December 12, 2018. See Gibraltar Private Bank & Tr. v. Schacht, 220 So. 3d 1234, 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“While a trial court is without jurisdiction to vacate a non- final order which has been appealed, a party’s filing of a certiorari petition challenging an interlocutory . . . order does not divest the trial court of jurisd…
-
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Bellamy, 302 So. 3d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…nd damages were determined. The order also struck any and all claims for punitive damages. Absent a stay, the filing of a petition has no effect on the trial court’s ability to proceed to adjudicate a case. Gibraltar Private Bank & Trust v. Schact, 220 So. 3d 1234, 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). On appeal, a case is moot where, by a change of circumstances prior to the appellate court’s decision, the judiciary is unable to grant any effectual relief. Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla. 1992); Montgomery v. D…
-
Kermes v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 327 So. 3d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case (3) that cannot be and, absent a stay, the filing of such a petition does not prevent the trial court from proceeding to adjudicate the case. See Gibraltar Private Bank & Trust v. Schacht, 220 So. 3d 1234, 1235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Bellamy, 302 So. 3d 1081, 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020). ---PAGE 4--- corrected on postjudgment appeal.... The last two elements are jurisdictional and must be analyzed before the court may even co…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Soles v. Soles, 536 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Curry v. State, 880 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)