Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Lugo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Lugo

614 So. 2d 16, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1864, 1993 WL 38203

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 16, 1993

DocketNo. 92-2518

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 614 So. 2d 16 (Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Lugo) 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

Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Lugo, 614 So. 2d 16, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1864, 1993 WL 38203 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners, defendant's in a personal injury action, seek a writ of certiorari quashing a trial court order denying their motion for leave to file a third-party complaint. We grant the petition, quash the order and remand for further proceedings.

Defendants are the manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of a product which allegedly injured plaintiffs. After plaintiffs’ expert was deposed, defendants learned that a product component was the alleged cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries. Defendants filed a motion with the trial court for leave to file a third-party complaint against the component’s manufacturer, distributor, and seller, seeking indemnification and contribution. The trial court denied the motion.

We grant defendants’ petition after finding that the trial court’s order constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law for which there is no adequate remedy on appeal. Here, as in Steak Enters., Inc. v. Claus, 345 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA1976), the trial court’s refusal to permit defendants to implead the third parties may expose defendants, in an independent action for contribution or indemnity, to an outcome inconsistent with the resolution of this action. The third parties are not bound by a judgment rendered in this case [17]*17when the trial court has precluded defendants from filing the third-party complaint. The record does not reflect a basis for the trial court’s ruling. Although the motion for leave to amend was originally filed close to the time of trial, the advent of Hurricane Andrew caused the trial to be continued; thus, when the motion was heard, time constraints were no longer a factor in ruling on the motion. Accordingly, the trial court’s order departs from essential requirements of law, and no remedy exists on plenary appeal for such an injury.

Certiorari granted; order quashed.

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

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners, defendant's in a personal injury action, seek a writ of certiorari quashing a trial court order denying their motion for leave to file a third-party complaint. We grant the petition, quash the order and remand for further proceedings.

Defendants are the manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of a product which allegedly injured plaintiffs. After plaintiffs’ expert was deposed, defendants learned that a product component was the alleged cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries. Defendants filed a motion with the trial court for leave to file a third-party complaint against the component’s manufacturer, distributor, and seller, seeking indemnification and contribution. The trial court denied the motion.

We grant defendants’ petition after finding that the trial court’s order constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law for which there is no adequate remedy on appeal. Here, as in Steak Enters., Inc. v. Claus, 345 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA1976), the trial court’s refusal to permit defendants to implead the third parties may expose defendants, in an independent action for contribution or indemnity, to an outcome inconsistent with the resolution of this action. The third parties are not bound by a judgment rendered in this case [17]*17when the trial court has precluded defendants from filing the third-party complaint. The record does not reflect a basis for the trial court’s ruling. Although the motion for leave to amend was originally filed close to the time of trial, the advent of Hurricane Andrew caused the trial to be continued; thus, when the motion was heard, time constraints were no longer a factor in ruling on the motion. Accordingly, the trial court’s order departs from essential requirements of law, and no remedy exists on plenary appeal for such an injury.

Certiorari granted; order quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

614 So. 2d 16, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1864, 1993 WL 38203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sterling-drug-inc-v-lugo-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack