Polselli v. Wicker, Smith, O'Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A.

133 So. 3d 1172, 2014 WL 714716, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 2584
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 26, 2014
DocketNo. 4D13-4180
StatusPublished

This text of 133 So. 3d 1172 (Polselli v. Wicker, Smith, O'Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A.) 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
Polselli v. Wicker, Smith, O'Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A., 133 So. 3d 1172, 2014 WL 714716, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 2584 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The petitioners seek certiorari review of an order that compels them, as California residents, to travel to Broward County, Florida, for their depositions. We grant the petition and quash the order. Teledyne Indus., Inc. v. Mustang Ranch Aircraft, Inc., 753 So.2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Ayer v. Bush, 696 So.2d 1333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Donahoo v. Matthews, 660 So.2d 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Fortune Ins. Co. v. Santelli, 621 So.2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); see also CVS Caremark Corp. v. Latour, 109 So.3d 1232, 1234-35 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (citing Triple Fish Am., Inc. v. Triple Fish Int’l, L.C., 839 So.2d 913, 914 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)).

Respondent law firm sued the petitioners individually, together with the business entities with which they are involved, for unpaid legal services provided to those entities. Respondent noticed the petitioners to appear for deposition in their individual capacity. It is well-settled that a defendant must be deposed in the county of his or her work or residence unless the defendant has sought affirmative relief or extraordinary circumstances exist. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.410(e)(2); Dan Euser [1173]*1173Waterarchitecture, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 112 So.3d 683, 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Ayer, 696 So.2d at 1333; Espana v. Redneris, 661 So.2d 1295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Petitioners are not seeking affirmative relief and respondents have failed to demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist, which would require petitioners’ appearance in Florida for deposition.

Petition granted and order quashed. 1

GERBER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. WARNER, J., dissents with opinion.

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

Related

DECKTIGHT ROOFING SERV., INC. v. Amwest Sur. Ins.
841 So. 2d 667 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Fortune Ins. Co. v. Santelli
621 So. 2d 546 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Bensonhurst Drywall, Inc. v. Ledesma
583 So. 2d 1094 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
CVS Caremark Corp. v. Latour
109 So. 3d 1232 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Dan Euser Waterarchitecture, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach
112 So. 3d 683 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Donahoo v. Matthews
660 So. 2d 391 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Espana v. Redneris
661 So. 2d 1295 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Ayer v. Bush
696 So. 2d 1333 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Teledyne Industries, Inc. v. Mustang Ranch Aircraft, Inc.
753 So. 2d 785 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Triple Fish America, Inc. v. Triple Fish International, L.C.
839 So. 2d 913 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
133 So. 3d 1172, 2014 WL 714716, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 2584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polselli-v-wicker-smith-ohara-mccoy-ford-pa-fladistctapp-2014.