final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for
Miami-Dade County, Gisela Cardonne Ely, Judge. Lower Tribunal
Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Benjamin M. Esco, Pedro J.
Collazo, and Scott Cole; Emerson & Elder, P.C., and
Donald E. Elder (Chicago, IL), for petitioner.
Law, and Matias R. Dorta and Gonzalo R. Dorta; De La Heria,
Glinn & Pedraza, and Raul De La Heria, for respondent.
SALTER, LOGUE, and SCALES, JJ.
Insurance Company seeks certiorari review of the trial
court's order denying its motion to dismiss or abate the
spoliation of evidence claim asserted by the plaintiff,
Lazaro Rodriguez. Because Amerisure has failed to meet the
threshold requirement of showing that the trial court's
order creates irreparable harm, we dismiss the petition for
lack of jurisdiction.
working for BV Oil, Inc. on the premises of Cosme
Investments, LLP, the plaintiff was involved in an accident
and suffered personal injuries. He filed a claim for
workers' compensation benefits and is receiving benefits
paid by BV Oil's workers' compensation carrier,
Amerisure Insurance Company.
plaintiff also sued Cosme Investments, asserting claims of
negligence and strict liability for the injuries he suffered
as a business invitee on Cosme's premises. He then
amended his complaint to add BV Oil and Amerisure as
defendants. The plaintiff alleged that BV Oil and Amerisure
had possessed, and negligently lost, a video which showed how
the accident occurred. The loss of the video, according to
the plaintiff, impaired his ability to prosecute his claim
against Cosme and defend against Cosme's claim of
filed a motion to dismiss or abate, arguing that the
spoliation claim was unripe for adjudication until the
plaintiff's premises liability claims had been resolved.
Following a hearing, the trial court denied Amerisure's
motion. This petition for writ of certiorari followed.
reaching the merits of the petition, we must first determine
whether we have jurisdiction. As is well established,
"[t]o prevail in its petition for a writ of certiorari,
a party must demonstrate that the contested order constitutes
(1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law,
(2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the
case, (3) that cannot be corrected on post-judgment
appeal." Damsky v. University of Miami, 152
So.3d 789, 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). The latter two elements
"are sometimes referred to as irreparable harm."
Id. If a petitioner is unable to demonstrate
irreparable harm, "the court must dismiss the petition
for lack of jurisdiction." Id.
Amerisure alleges that it will be irreparably harmed if it is
forced to respond to discovery propounded by the plaintiff.
Amerisure argues that discovery is premature and that
"the information requested is irrelevant to
Plaintiff's [complaint], or is otherwise protected by the
attorney-client, work-product or other privileges."
Further, Amerisure has "objected to producing a
corporate representative on the seventeen (17) substantive
diverse topics set forth in Plaintiff's Notice of
Deposition as the notice would potentially require the
depositions of multiple representatives, and were
objectionable on their face." Although discovery ...