Greenberg Traurig Hoffman Lipoff Rosen & Quentel, P.A. v. Sun NLF Ltd. Partnership

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Greenberg Traurig Hoffman Lipoff Rosen & Quentel, P.A. v. Sun NLF Ltd. Partnership

719 So. 2d 1029, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 13927, 1998 WL 775007

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 4, 1998·No. No. 98-2197·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to Appellate Rule 9.130(a)(3)(B), we treat Greenberg Traurig’s petition for certiorari as an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s order vacating an earlier stay in the underlying litigation between the parties, and hereby reverse the order under review.

Because we find that Sun NLF’s legal malpractice action against Greenberg Trau-rig depends upon the resolution of Sun NLF’s unjust enrichment action against the Dadeland Cove Homeowners’ Association, which still pends, we hold that vacation of the stay of the malpractice action was premature. See Bierman v. Miller, 639 So.2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Diaz v. Piquette, 496 So.2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Further, in our view, Greenberg Traurig was not given proper notice of Sun NLF’s motion to vacate prior to the oral motion made by Sun NLF at the August 24,1998, hearing.

For these reasons, we hereby reverse the order under review.

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

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to Appellate Rule 9.130(a)(3)(B), we treat Greenberg Traurig’s petition for certiorari as an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s order vacating an earlier stay in the underlying litigation between the parties, and hereby reverse the order under review.

Because we find that Sun NLF’s legal malpractice action against Greenberg Trau-rig depends upon the resolution of Sun NLF’s unjust enrichment action against the Dadeland Cove Homeowners’ Association, which still pends, we hold that vacation of the stay of the malpractice action was premature. See Bierman v. Miller, 639 So.2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Diaz v. Piquette, 496 So.2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Further, in our view, Greenberg Traurig was not given proper notice of Sun NLF’s motion to vacate prior to the oral motion made by Sun NLF at the August 24,1998, hearing.

For these reasons, we hereby reverse the order under review.

Greenberg Traurig Hoffman Lipoff Rosen & Quentel, P.A. v. Sun NLF Ltd. Partnership, 719 So. 2d 1029, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 13927, 1998 WL 775007 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

719 So. 2d 1029 (Greenberg Traurig Hoffman Lipoff Rosen & Quentel, P.A. v. Sun NLF Ltd. Partnership) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related