Thomas R. Becnel, and DRB etc. v. AIZ Holdings, LLC

240 So. 3d 904
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 25, 2018
Docket17-3686
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
Thomas R. Becnel, and DRB etc. v. AIZ Holdings, LLC, 240 So. 3d 904 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

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

Heekin v. Del Col
60 So. 3d 437 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
West Florida Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. See
79 So. 3d 1 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2012)
Board of Trustees v. American Educational Enterprises, LLC
37 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 589 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
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.