St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co. v. Bukauskas

District Court of Appeal of Florida

St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co. v. Bukauskas

867 So. 2d 1268, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3502, 2004 WL 534817

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 19, 2004

DocketNo. 5D03-3140

StatusPublished

This text of 867 So. 2d 1268 (St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co. v. Bukauskas) 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

St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co. v. Bukauskas, 867 So. 2d 1268, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3502, 2004 WL 534817 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PLEUS, J.

Appellant, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, filed its “Notice of Appeal of Partial Final Judgment” pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(A) and 9.110(k) of an “Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Set Aside Settlement Agreement, Denying Defendants’ St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Denying Petition for Attorney’s Fees and Costs and/or to Disburse Monies Held in the Registry of the Court.” The order under review is not a final order, partial final judgment or other appealable order.

We have also considered appellant’s request to review this matter as a petition for writ of certiorari. A certiorari review of an interlocutory, non-appealable order is appropriate only when the order departs from the essential requirements of law and causes material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings below, effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal. Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1987). The mere expense and inconvenience of further litigation does not constitute harm sufficient to permit certiorari review. H.L.O.T. Family Limited Partnership v. Magnolia Plantation Property Owners Association, Inc., 801 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). We conclude that certiorari relief is not appropriate under the facts of this case because the issues raised in this proceeding are renewable on direct ap[1269]*1269peal. See, e.g., Caruso v. Super Vision International, Inc., 845 So.2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, alternatively deny the petition and cancel oral argument.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

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

PLEUS, J.

Appellant, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, filed its “Notice of Appeal of Partial Final Judgment” pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(A) and 9.110(k) of an “Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Set Aside Settlement Agreement, Denying Defendants’ St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Denying Petition for Attorney’s Fees and Costs and/or to Disburse Monies Held in the Registry of the Court.” The order under review is not a final order, partial final judgment or other appealable order.

We have also considered appellant’s request to review this matter as a petition for writ of certiorari. A certiorari review of an interlocutory, non-appealable order is appropriate only when the order departs from the essential requirements of law and causes material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings below, effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal. Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1987). The mere expense and inconvenience of further litigation does not constitute harm sufficient to permit certiorari review. H.L.O.T. Family Limited Partnership v. Magnolia Plantation Property Owners Association, Inc., 801 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). We conclude that certiorari relief is not appropriate under the facts of this case because the issues raised in this proceeding are renewable on direct ap[1269]*1269peal. See, e.g., Caruso v. Super Vision International, Inc., 845 So.2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, alternatively deny the petition and cancel oral argument.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

867 So. 2d 1268, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3502, 2004 WL 534817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-paul-guardian-ins-co-v-bukauskas-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack