Opinion
No. 3D20-1445
03-24-2021
ANCHOR PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Eduardo TESINI, Respondent.
Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A., and David B. Shelton and Candy L. Messersmith (Orlando), for petitioner. Ver Ploeg & Marino, P.A., and Stephen A. Marino, Jr., and S. Alice Weeks, for respondent.
Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A., and David B. Shelton and Candy L. Messersmith (Orlando), for petitioner.
Ver Ploeg & Marino, P.A., and Stephen A. Marino, Jr., and S. Alice Weeks, for respondent.
Before SCALES, LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Petitioner Anchor Property and Casualty Insurance Company seeks certiorari review of the trial court's September 8, 2020 discovery order. "To obtain certiorari relief, the petitioner must establish the following three elements: ‘(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 postjudgment appeal.’ " Rivero v. Farach, 247 So. 3d 632, 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (quoting Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812, 822 (Fla. 2004) ). We deny the petition because, in entering the challenged order, the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law. In re Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Miami Perfume Junction, Inc. v. Osborne, 314 So.3d 604, 606–08 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 23, 2020). " ‘Departure from the essential requirements of law’ is defined the same way across all uses of certiorari review: ‘a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.’ " Lacaretta Rest. v. Zepeda, 115 So. 3d 1091, 1093 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (citations omitted).
Petition denied.