Banco Industrial de Venezuela, C.A. v. de Saad

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Banco Industrial de Venezuela, C.A. v. de Saad

126 So. 3d 259, 2010 WL 184017, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 369

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 21, 2010

DocketNo. 3D08-1713

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 126 So. 3d 259 (Banco Industrial de Venezuela, C.A. v. de Saad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Banco Industrial de Venezuela, C.A. v. de Saad, 126 So. 3d 259, 2010 WL 184017, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 369 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

SUAREZ, J.

On Motion to Stay Mandate

Appellants/Cross-Appellees/Defendants, Banco Industrial de Venezuela, C.A., Miami Agency, etc., and BIV Investments and Management, Inc., a/k/a BIV Inversores y Promotores (collectively “BIV”), have filed a notice under Rule 9.120, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure, invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court to review this Court’s decision in this matter. See Banco Industrial De Venezuela, C.A. v. de Saad, 21 So.3d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). We now address Banco Industrial’s and BIV’s Motion to Stay the Effect of, or in the Alternative, Withdraw This Court’s Mandate pending resolution of their Notice to Invoke the Discretionary Jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court.

Subsequent to this Court’s decision and the issuance of the mandate, Banco Industrial and BIV filed a notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction with the Florida Supreme Court. Pursuant to Rule 9.120, these parties have requested this Court stay or withdraw the mandate pending determination by the Florida Supreme Court. The Committee Notes to Rule 9.120 state the following concerning motions to stay mandate:

The advisory committee was of the view that the District Courts should permit such stays only when essential. Factors to be considered are the likelihood that jurisdiction will be accepted by the Supreme Court, the likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, the likelihood of harm if no stay is granted, and the remediable quality of any such harm.

After a review of this Court’s decision, and the motion and response in this matter, it appears to this Court that Banco Industrial’s and BIVs motion fails on the [260]*260first two factors, the likelihood that the Supreme Court will accept jurisdiction and the likelihood of ultimate success on the merits.

Banco Industrial and BIV argue that the Supreme Court will accept jurisdiction claiming conflict between our decision and decisions of certain other District Courts of Appeal. Upon review of those decisions we, again, do not find conflict. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there is not a likelihood that the Supreme Court will accept jurisdiction.

Motion to Stay Mandate is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUAREZ, J.

On Motion to Stay Mandate

Appellants/Cross-Appellees/Defendants, Banco Industrial de Venezuela, C.A., Miami Agency, etc., and BIV Investments and Management, Inc., a/k/a BIV Inversores y Promotores (collectively “BIV”), have filed a notice under Rule 9.120, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure, invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court to review this Court’s decision in this matter. See Banco Industrial De Venezuela, C.A. v. de Saad, 21 So.3d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). We now address Banco Industrial’s and BIV’s Motion to Stay the Effect of, or in the Alternative, Withdraw This Court’s Mandate pending resolution of their Notice to Invoke the Discretionary Jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court.

Subsequent to this Court’s decision and the issuance of the mandate, Banco Industrial and BIV filed a notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction with the Florida Supreme Court. Pursuant to Rule 9.120, these parties have requested this Court stay or withdraw the mandate pending determination by the Florida Supreme Court. The Committee Notes to Rule 9.120 state the following concerning motions to stay mandate:

The advisory committee was of the view that the District Courts should permit such stays only when essential. Factors to be considered are the likelihood that jurisdiction will be accepted by the Supreme Court, the likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, the likelihood of harm if no stay is granted, and the remediable quality of any such harm.

After a review of this Court’s decision, and the motion and response in this matter, it appears to this Court that Banco Industrial’s and BIVs motion fails on the [260]*260first two factors, the likelihood that the Supreme Court will accept jurisdiction and the likelihood of ultimate success on the merits.

Banco Industrial and BIV argue that the Supreme Court will accept jurisdiction claiming conflict between our decision and decisions of certain other District Courts of Appeal. Upon review of those decisions we, again, do not find conflict. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there is not a likelihood that the Supreme Court will accept jurisdiction.

Motion to Stay Mandate is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 So. 3d 259, 2010 WL 184017, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banco-industrial-de-venezuela-ca-v-de-saad-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack