Thomas R. Becnel, and DRB etc. v. AIZ Holdings, LLC
This text of 240 So. 3d 904 (Thomas R. Becnel, and DRB etc. v. AIZ Holdings, LLC) 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.
Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
No. 1D17-3686 _____________________________
THOMAS R. BECNEL and DRB DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
Petitioners,
v.
AIZ HOLDINGS, LLC,
Respondent. _____________________________
Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction.
April 25, 2018
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners, Thomas R. Becnel and DRB Development, LLC, seek certiorari review of an order granting a motion to compel discovery filed by Respondent, AIZ Holdings, LLC, and denying DRB’s motion to quash. Because we agree with Respondent that Petitioners are unable to show irreparable harm, we dismiss the petition. See W. Fla. Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. See, 18 So. 3d 676, 682 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (noting that a petitioner seeking certiorari review must demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of the law resulting in irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on appeal and that the irreparable harm element must be addressed first because it is an issue of jurisdiction), aff’d, 79 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2012); see also Bd. of Trs. of the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So. 3d 450, 456 (Fla. 2012) (explaining that overbreadth in the context of discovery is not a sufficient basis for certiorari relief); Heekin v. Del Col, 60 So. 3d 437, 438-39 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (noting that an order compelling production of relevant financial information cannot be the object of a writ of certiorari because there is no irreparable harm).
DISMISSED.
LEWIS, KELSEY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Dana C. Matthews and John M. Stratton of Matthews & Jones, LLP, Destin, for Petitioners.
Laurence J. Pino of Pino Nicolson, PLLC, Orlando; Stephen D. Milbrath and Tucker H. Byrd of Byrd Campbell, P.A., Winter Park, for Respondent.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
240 So. 3d 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-r-becnel-and-drb-etc-v-aiz-holdings-llc-fladistctapp-2018.