Nataliia Soloid, Yurui Soloid, Arsenii Soloid, and Ilaria Soloid v. Tedd King and Brendan King

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: March 20, 2026
• Docket: 6D2025-2776
• Status: Published

Opinion

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 6D2025-2776 Lower Tribunal No. 2024-CA-000696 _____________________________

NATALIA SOLOID, YURUI SOLOID, ARSENI SOLOID, and ILARIA SOLOID,

Petitioners,

v.

TEDD KING and BRENDAN KING,

Respondents. _____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Collier County. James F. Stewart, Judge.

March 20, 2026

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See, e.g., State v. Garcia, 350 So. 3d 322, 326 (Fla. 2022) (“In

the absence of irreparable harm incapable of remedy on postjudgment appeal, the

district court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari.”); CPPB, LLC v. Taurus

Apopka City Ctr., LLC, 375 So. 3d 327, 329 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (“As has been

written many times over, the common law writ of certiorari is an extraordinary

remedy and is intended to be available only in limited circumstances. . . . Appellate

courts may grant a petition for certiorari only when the petitioner establishes (1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury

for the remainder of the case (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal.”

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Regala v. McDonald, 374 So. 3d

855, 858 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (“Because the second and third elements, which are

jointly referenced as ‘irreparable harm,’ are jurisdictional, they must be established

before the first element, i.e., the merits, may be addressed.” (citations omitted));

Boyd v. Pheo, Inc., 664 So. 2d 294, 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“[O]rders having the

effect of denying discovery are almost invariably not reviewable by certiorari

because of the absence of irreparable harm.”); see generally Adkins v. Sotolongo,

227 So. 3d 717, 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (Luck, J., concurring) (“The reason most

often given for allowing review of an order denying discovery is that the appellate

court would not know what the information was that was excluded and, as a

consequence, the court would not know how the information might have affected

the outcome of the case. This argument has some practical appeal but it also has two

weaknesses. First, it is an argument that could be made about any order denying

discovery. The danger in applying the rationale of the argument too freely is that it

might convert an extraordinary remedy into a routine step in the process. Second,

the argument fails to take full account of the remedies that are available on direct

appeal. In many cases it may be an adequate remedy to reverse the judgment for a

2 new trial to be conducted with the benefit of the discovery previously denied.”

(quoting Philip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice § 30:5 (2016 ed.))).

STARGEL, WHITE and PRATT, JJ., concur.

Raymond Christopher, of Ave Maria Law Center, Ave Maria, for Petitioners.

Nicholas R. Consalvo and Kevin D. Franz, of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., Boca Raton, for Respondents.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED