NEW PLAN REALTY TRUST, APPELLANT/PETITIONER,
v.
THE TOWERS APARTMENTS, INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES/RESPONDENTS
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Common Law Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
New Plan Realty Trust filed notice of interlocutory appeal in Case No. DD-20 from an order denying its motion to stay this proceeding pending the disposition of a suit in the State of New York covering the same subject matter and issues as are raised in this suit. Subsequently, the trial court entered an order modifying its previous order and granting the stay as to this Florida action except as to discovery proceedings. Appellant then filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari in Case No. DD-145 seeking review of the foregoing two orders of the trial court and simultaneously therewith filed a notice of voluntary dismissal as to Case No. DD-20. In the meantime, appellees had filed cross-assignments of error in Case No. DD-20 and objected to the notice of voluntary dismissal. Appellees also moved to consolidate the two cases and by this court’s order of September 7, 1976, the cases were consolidated. We treat the entire matter as common law certiorari rather than interlocutory appeal.
The trial court properly exercised its discretion in granting the stay of this cause of action pending trial of the same issues in the New York suit but abused its discretion in excepting discovery proceedings from the stay. The whole purpose of the stay is to avoid duplicate proceedings in both New York and Florida, and we find no reasonable basis for allowing duplicate discovery proceedings.
Certiorari is granted and the cause is remanded with directions to vacate the exception to the stay which would allow discovery to proceed during the stay.
McCORD, C. J., and MILLS, J., concur. BOYER, J., dissents in part and concurs in part.
BOYER, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I am of the view that the learned trial judge is allowed a broader discretion than that afforded by my brethren, and that he did not abuse that discretion in allowing discovery proceedings to continue. I would affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gillis v. Prudence Anne Clare Gillis, 391 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…f the proceedings in both England and Florida, the trial court should have exercised its sound discretion and stayed the Florida proceedings pending determination of the question in England. See: New Plan Realty Trust v. The Towers Apartments, Inc., 350 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). By failing to do so, under the facts of the instant case, the trial court abused its discretion. Therefore, we hereby quash the order under review and remand the cause to the trial court, with directions to stay the proceeding…
-
Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Gehl, 358 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…at the present case concerns a loss occurring in Missouri among Missouri residents and that it is presently the subject of a lawsuit in Missouri where all the witnesses are located. The recent decision of New Plan Realty Trust v. Towers Apartments, 350 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) held that the trial court there properly exercised its discretion in granting a stay in a Florida suit pending trial of the same issues in a New York suit. The court reasoned that the whole purpose of such a stay is to avoid dupl…
-
A Parcel OF Real Prop. & THE Contents Thereof Located AT 7335 N.W. 52ND Court v. State OF Mich., 564 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…ial court granted a stay of proceedings and continued the effect of the lis pendens on the theory that the court could stay a cause of action pending trial of the same issues in another state, citing New Plan Realty Trust v. Towers Apartments, Inc., 350 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), and Bedingfield v. Bedingfield, 417 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The court did not actually rule on the motion to dismiss, although the finding that Michigan lacked authority to proceed under the statutory forfeiture would c…