Gielchinsky v. VIBO CORP.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gielchinsky v. VIBO CORP.

5 So. 3d 785, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2494, 2009 WL 764657

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 25, 2009

Docket3D08-2614

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 5 So. 3d 785 (Gielchinsky v. VIBO CORP.) 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

Gielchinsky v. VIBO CORP., 5 So. 3d 785, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2494, 2009 WL 764657 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

GERSTEN, C.J.

Robert Gielchinsky (“Gielchinsky”) petitions this Court for writ of certiorari and/or mandamus to quash the trial court’s order denying his motion to dispense with special magistrate services. We grant the petition and quash the order.

Previously, both parties agreed to the appointment of a special magistrate to conduct discovery. After a great deal of discovery under the auspices of the special magistrate, Gielchinsky no longer sought, or agreed to the continuing special magistrate services. Ultimately, Gielchinsky withdrew his consent to have a special magistrate and moved to dispense with the special magistrate’s services.

Consent of the parties is required to refer any matter to a special magistrate. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.490(c). See also Pesut v. Miller, 773 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Miller v. Lifshutz, 558 So.2d 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Concomitantly, if a party withdraws his consent, as Giel-chinsky did here with good cause due to financial reasons, then it logically follows that the matter is no longer appropriate for a special magistrate.

Accordingly, we grant the petition, and quash the trial court’s order denying the motion to dispense with special magistrate services.

Petition granted, order quashed.

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