Bensonhurst Drywall, Inc. v. Ledesma
This text of 583 So. 2d 1094 (Bensonhurst Drywall, Inc. v. Ledesma) 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.
Opinion
BENSONHURST DRYWALL, INC., Petitioner,
v.
Saul LEDESMA, Respondent.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jonathan J. Davis, Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder & Carson, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.
No appearance filed by respondent.
PER CURIAM.
This petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed as being untimely. The petitioner filed a motion for protective order from certain discovery which was denied on March 7, 1991. That order was not appealed. Petitioner then refused to permit the discovery at a deposition which was terminated. After an order resetting the deposition was entered, and a subpoena requesting the same documents as before was served, petitioner filed a second motion for protective order alleging essentially the same grounds as the first but in greater detail. This too was denied by the court prompting this petition.
Any petition for writ of certiorari should have been filed after the first order denying the motion for protective order. Petitioner cannot evade the time requirements of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(c) by filing successive motions addressed to the same issue. We liken this to the filing of a motion for rehearing from a *1095 non-final order which does not toll rendition. See McGee v. McGee, 487 So.2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
Dismissed.
DELL, STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
583 So. 2d 1094, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 7064, 1991 WL 134391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bensonhurst-drywall-inc-v-ledesma-fladistctapp-1991.