The Week in Torts – Cases from the Week of June 2, 2017

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 42, NUMBER 22

CASES FROM THE WEEK OF JUNE 2, 2017

PARTIES’ FILING OF A CERTIORARI PETITION CHALLENGING AN INTERLOCUTORY DISCOVERY ORDER DOES NOT DIVEST THE TRIAL COURT OF JURISDICTION.

Gibraltar Private Bank v. Schacht, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D1175 (Fla. 3^rd DCA May 24, 2017):

While this certiorari petition was pending, the parties sought to relinquish jurisdiction to have the trial court enter an amended order. The court declined to adjudicate the parties’ motion to relinquish jurisdiction because it stated the motion was unnecessary.

While a trial court is without jurisdiction to vacate a nonfinal order which has been appealed, a party’s filing of a certiorari petition challenging an interlocutory discovery order does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction. Absent a stay, the filing of such a petition has no effect on the lower court’s ability to proceed to adjudicate the case.

The court then treated the parties’ motion seeking relinquishment as a motion seeking an extension of time instead.

AN ORDER FINDING ENTITLEMENT TO FEES BUT NOT DETERMINING AMOUNT, IS A NONFINAL, NONAPPEALABLE ORDER EVEN IF IT DETERMINES CERTAIN COSTS, AND ORDERS THE PARTIES TO MEDIATION TO ADDRESS PENDING ISSUES.

Pulling v. Billmyre Enterprises, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D1198 (Fla. 2^nd DCA May 26, 2017):

Following a jury trial, the trial court entered an order finding an entitlement to costs but not determining an amount. The party appealed and the Second District dismissed it as a nonfinal, nonappealable order.

Two months later, the court entered a subsequent order determining an amount for certain costs owed to the prevailing party, further determining an entitlement to attorney’s fees, but ordering the parties to mediation to address the pending issues regarding the award of costs and fees. That order was also nonappealable and nonfinal and dismissed by the Second District.

When the trial court finally rendered its supplemental final judgment inclusive of fees and costs, and awarded specific sums to the prevailing party for both fees and costs, that order was finally appealable, because the court ruled on both entitlement and amount.