VICKEN BEDOYAN AND WPM MIAMI, INC., PETITIONERS,
v.
HAROUT SAMRA, 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.
Petitioners Bedoyan and WPM Miami sought a writ of certiorari challenging the trial court's denial of their directed verdict motions after a jury found them liable in a partnership breach case. The appellate court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that petitioners failed to demonstrate the irreparable harm necessary for interlocutory review.
The appellate court dismissed the petition for writ of certiorari for lack of jurisdiction because petitioners failed to establish that the interlocutory orders created irreparable harm that could not be remedied in a plenary appeal following the trial on damages. The court found that the agreed confidentiality order adequately protected the petitioners from any irreparable harm.
[1] A petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of an interlocutory order will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction if the petitioner fails to demonstrate material harm…
[2] A confidentiality order that restricts access to discovered documents to a party's counsel and experts may adequately protect a party from the "cat out of the bag" discov…
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“a petitioner must establish that an interlocutory order creates material harm irreparable by postjudgment appeal before this court has power to determine whether the order departs from the essential requirements of the law”
Establishes the jurisdictional standard for certiorari review of interlocutory orders
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVicken Bedoyan and WPM Miami, Inc. were co-defendants in a case brought by Harout Samra alleging partnership breach. At a bifurcated trial, the jury r…
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 Accountant-Client Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
In this petition for writ of certiorari, Vicken Bedoyan and WPM Miami, Inc., co-defendants below, argue that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in denying their motion for directed verdict and renewed motion for directed verdict, where the jury entered a verdict in favor of Harout Samra, the plaintiff below, on liability at a bifurcated trial.1 In light of the jury verdict, and with a trial on damages pending, Samra propounded discovery requests that the petitioners argue seek information and communications that are protected by the accountant-client privilege.2 ,3 Because the petitioners have not demonstrated irreparable harm that cannot be remedied in a plenary appeal following the trial on damages, *1104we lack jurisdiction to hear, and therefore dismiss, the instant petition. See Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So.2d 646, 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (recognizing that "a petitioner must establish that an interlocutory order creates material harm irreparable by postjudgment appeal before this court has power to determine whether the order departs from the essential requirements of the law").4
Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Venezia v. Wells Fargo Bank, 258 So. 3d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…ere the successful bidder at the sale. For harm resulting from a non-final order to be irreparable, so as to provide this Court with certiorari jurisdiction, the harm must be such that it could not be remedied on plenary appeal. Bedoyan v. Samra, 237 So. 3d 1102, 1103-04 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Sardinas v. Lagares, 805 So. 2d 1024, 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“The writ of certiorari is reserved for those situations where the order results in a material injury which cannot be corrected on appeal and departs from…
Authorities Cited
- Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Bestechnologies, Inc. v. Trident Env't Sys., Inc., 681 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)