Post-Newsweek Stations, Florida, Inc. v. Kaye

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Post-Newsweek Stations, Florida, Inc. v. Kaye

585 So. 2d 430, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8568, 1991 WL 167224

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 3, 1991

DocketNos. 91-1108, 91-903

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 585 So. 2d 430 (Post-Newsweek Stations, Florida, Inc. v. Kaye) 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

Post-Newsweek Stations, Florida, Inc. v. Kaye, 585 So. 2d 430, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8568, 1991 WL 167224 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinions

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION/WRIT OF CERTIORARI

BASKIN, Judge.

Petitioners seek a writ of prohibition to restrain the trial judge from presiding and seek certiorari review of an order denying their motion to compel discovery. We deny both petitions.

First, we address the petition for writ of prohibition. The sole consideration in ruling on a motion for disqualification is whether the litigant requesting disqualification reasonably fears that he or she will not receive a fair or impartial trial. MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., [431]*431565 So.2d 1332 (Fla.1990); Fischer v. Knuck, 497 So.2d 240 (Fla.1986); Livingston v. State, 441 So.2d 1083 (Fla.1983). Petitioners’ trial court motion for disqualification is predicated on the possible extrapolated effects of the court’s decision on the motion to compel discovery; it is not premised on existing facts. The motion does not demonstrate “some actual bias or prejudice so as to create a reasonable fear that a fair trial cannot be had_” Dra-govich v. State, 492 So.2d 350, 353 (Fla. 1986). The basis for petitioner’s motion is the adverse judicial ruling, an improper ground for disqualification. Claughton v. Claughton, 452 So.2d 1073 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Nassetta v. Kaplan, 557 So.2d 919 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The trial court therefore correctly denied the motion for disqualification as legally insufficient. MacKenzie.

We turn next to the petition for writ of certiorari. To be reviewable by certiorari, an order must depart from the essential requirements of law, and there must be no adequate remedy on appeal. Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1987); American Southern Co. v. Tinter, Inc., 565 So.2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Feldman v. Glucroft, 553 So.2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); General Development Corp. v. Stanislaus, 544 So.2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 551 So.2d 461 (Fla. 1989). A trial court has broad discretion to deny discovery motions, American Southern Co., 565 So.2d at 892, and certiorari may not be utilized to review rulings if the alleged error can be rectified on appeal. American Southern Co., 565 So.2d at 893. Any injury petitioners may suffer from the denial of their motion to compel discovery can be adequately remedied on appeal.

Prohibition denied; certiorari denied.

HUBBART, J., concurs.

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

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION/WRIT OF CERTIORARI

BASKIN, Judge.

Petitioners seek a writ of prohibition to restrain the trial judge from presiding and seek certiorari review of an order denying their motion to compel discovery. We deny both petitions.

First, we address the petition for writ of prohibition. The sole consideration in ruling on a motion for disqualification is whether the litigant requesting disqualification reasonably fears that he or she will not receive a fair or impartial trial. MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., [431]*431565 So.2d 1332 (Fla.1990); Fischer v. Knuck, 497 So.2d 240 (Fla.1986); Livingston v. State, 441 So.2d 1083 (Fla.1983). Petitioners’ trial court motion for disqualification is predicated on the possible extrapolated effects of the court’s decision on the motion to compel discovery; it is not premised on existing facts. The motion does not demonstrate “some actual bias or prejudice so as to create a reasonable fear that a fair trial cannot be had_” Dra-govich v. State, 492 So.2d 350, 353 (Fla. 1986). The basis for petitioner’s motion is the adverse judicial ruling, an improper ground for disqualification. Claughton v. Claughton, 452 So.2d 1073 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Nassetta v. Kaplan, 557 So.2d 919 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The trial court therefore correctly denied the motion for disqualification as legally insufficient. MacKenzie.

We turn next to the petition for writ of certiorari. To be reviewable by certiorari, an order must depart from the essential requirements of law, and there must be no adequate remedy on appeal. Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1987); American Southern Co. v. Tinter, Inc., 565 So.2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Feldman v. Glucroft, 553 So.2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); General Development Corp. v. Stanislaus, 544 So.2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 551 So.2d 461 (Fla. 1989). A trial court has broad discretion to deny discovery motions, American Southern Co., 565 So.2d at 892, and certiorari may not be utilized to review rulings if the alleged error can be rectified on appeal. American Southern Co., 565 So.2d at 893. Any injury petitioners may suffer from the denial of their motion to compel discovery can be adequately remedied on appeal.

Prohibition denied; certiorari denied.

HUBBART, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

585 So. 2d 430, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8568, 1991 WL 167224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/post-newsweek-stations-florida-inc-v-kaye-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack