PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL SPECIALTIES, INC., AND BEVERLY M. JONES, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF QUENTIN R. JONES, DECEASED, PETITIONERS,
v.
AILEEN RENFROE, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF TOMMIE E. RENFROE, DECEASED, ET AL., RESPONDENTS; THE GARRETT CORPORATION, AIR RESEARCH MANUFACTURING DIVISION, PETITIONER, V. AILEEN RENFROE, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF TOMMIE E. RENFROE, DECEASED, ET AL., 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.
The court denied petitions for writs of certiorari seeking review of trial court orders that refused to compel answers during discovery depositions in a wrongful death action. The petitioners sought to discover facts about a delay in service of process to argue that lack of due diligence nullified the timely filing of suit for statute of limitations purposes.
The court declined to grant the writ of certiorari because the issue could be resolved on plenary appeal and because reviewing interlocutory discovery orders by common law certiorari would overwhelm the court's docket without sufficient justification.
[1] Interlocutory orders denying motions to compel discovery are reviewable by writ of certiorari.
[2] Expediency and the potential saving of time and expense do not constitute grounds for granting review of interlocutory orders by common law certiorari.
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“Expediency and the possible saving of time and expense do not constitute grounds for granting review of interlocutory orders by common law certiorari.”
Establishes the standard for granting certiorari review of discovery orders—expediency alone is insufficient.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA wrongful death suit was filed one day before the statute of limitations expired, but service of process was not completed until six months later. Pe…
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 Due Diligence In Service Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Chief Judge.
By petitions for writs of certiorari we have for review orders of the trial court denying motions to compel answers in a discovery deposition.
The action involved is one for wrongful death. Suit was commenced one day before the Statute of Limitations expired, but process was not served until six months later. Petitioners raised the Statute of Limitations as a defense and by way of discovery sought to garner the facts sur rounding the delay in service of process so that they could assert that lack of due diligence in service of process nullified the filing of the suit before the Statute of Limitations had actually run. In order to prove those facts petitioners took the deposition of a lawyer for respondents. He refused to answer the questions propounded regarding the filing of this action and the Court refused to require him to do so. It is this latter judicial act we are asked to review.
There are numerous Federal cases holding due diligence in service of process is required in order to enable one to rely upon the act of filing suit to toll the running of the Statute of Limitations. The Second District Court of Appeal has held recently in Pratt v. Durkop, 356 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1978), that the timely filing of suit is all that is required to stop the statute from running. Neither the Supreme Court of Florida nor this Court has spoken to the precise question.
We are sorely tempted by expedition to resolve the question presented, but that is not a proper reason for granting certiorari. Expediency and the possible saving of time and expense do not constitute grounds for granting review of interlocutory orders by common law certiorari. Should we grant certiorari in discovery questions such as this, this Court would become inundated in the review of such a multitude of discovery questions that our present docket predicament could but worsen. Accordingly, we decline to grant the writ in this case because the issue presented can be resolved upon plenary appeal. We reaffirm the rule announced in Siegel v. Abramowitz, 309 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
Petitions for writ of certiorari are DENIED.
ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Hawaiian INN OF Daytona Beach Inc. v. Snead Constr. Corp., 393 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…. COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur. . See Dairyland Insurance Company v. McKenzie, 251 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). . See Bowl America Florida, Inc. v. Schmidt, 386 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Professional Medical Specialties, Inc. v. Renfroe, 362 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Ford Motor Company v. Nelson, 355 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Whiteside v. Johnson, 351 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); and Wright v. Sterling Drugs, Inc., 287 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Haddad, Certiorari in Florida, 29…
-
Indus. Tractor Co. v. Bartlett, 454 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…ot be utilized to review orders which deny discovery because such orders, if in error, can be rectified upon plenary appeal. See, e.g., Esman v. Board of Regents, 425 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Professional Medical Specialties, Inc. v. Renfroe, 362 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied. DENIED. COBB, C.J., and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., J., concur.…
-
Paine v. Lucas, 411 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…on for leave to file second amended complaint); Bowl America Florida, Inc. v. Schmidt, 386 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (order denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute); Professional Medical Specialties, Inc. v. Renfroe, 362 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (order denying motions to compel answers in a discovery deposition); Ford Motor Company v. Nelson, 355 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (order striking affirmative defense); Whiteside v. Johnson, 351 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Humphrey v. Seminole Cnty. Court, 309 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- McCUE v. City OF N. Miami, 356 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Verden J. Pratt v. Durkop, 356 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)