THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL CIMINO
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. AND EDWIN DIAZ
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.
A trial court may not appoint a special magistrate to review discovery materials without the written or expressed consent of all parties to the litigation.
[1] Consent of the parties is required to refer any matter to a special magistrate.
[2] Mandamus lies to preclude reference of a matter to a magistrate without the consent of the parties.
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“Consent of the parties is required to refer any matter to a special magistrate.”
The court's statement of the governing legal rule from Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490(c).
The Estate of Michael Cimino objected in writing to the trial court's oral ruling appointing a special magistrate to conduct an in camera review of na…
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 Consent Of Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Estate of Michael Cimino petitions for a writ of mandamus and a writ of certiorari related to the trial court’s order appointing a special magistrate to review in camera native cell phone data. Petitioner contends it is entitled to mandamus relief where the court appointed a special magistrate over its objection.
We grant the petition for writ of mandamus but dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari as moot pursuant to petitioner’s concession.
Here, after the trial court issued an oral ruling appointing a special magistrate, petitioner filed written objections to the oral rulings. In the written objections, petitioner noted it “object[ed] to the appointment of a special magistrate for any purpose” and “objected on all grounds to the use of a special magistrate . . . .” The court then issued its written order appointing the special magistrate.
2
Consent of the parties is required to refer any matter to a special magistrate. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.490(c). Mandamus lies to preclude reference of a matter to a magistrate without the consent of the parties. Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Carnoto, 798 So. 2d 22, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (granting mandamus to enforce compliance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490, which precludes reference of a matter to a magistrate without the consent of the parties).
The record demonstrates that petitioner did not consent to the trial court referring the matter to the special magistrate. Precedent requires that we grant the writ of mandamus and compel the trial court to resolve these disputes without the use of the special magistrate.
Petition for writ of mandamus granted; petition for writ of certiorari dismissed.
LEVINE, C.J., GERBER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.