Opinion
3D24-0367
08-07-2024
Liran Zorella, et al., Petitioners, v. Pathman Schermer Tandy, LLP, Respondent.
The Law Office of Kelly D. Feig, P.A., and Kelly D. Feig (Hallandale Beach), for petitioners. Pathman Law, LLC, and David M. Hawthorne, for respondent.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Michael G. Barket, Judge. Lower Tribunal No. 23-711 CC
The Law Office of Kelly D. Feig, P.A., and Kelly D. Feig (Hallandale Beach), for petitioners.
Pathman Law, LLC, and David M. Hawthorne, for respondent.
Before EMAS, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Liran Zorella and Zorella Investments, LLC (collectively, "the Zorellas") seek certiorari review of a non-final order that denied their motion to stay or abate pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and ordered the parties to mediation. "Before a court may grant 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." Williams v. Oken, 62 So.3d 1129, 1132 (Fla. 2011) (quotations omitted).
The Zorellas rely on Fountainbleau, LLC v. Hire Us, Inc., 273 So.3d 1152, 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019), in which our sister court granted certiorari relief where a trial court deferred ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and ordered arbitration "to address the merits of the case, the jurisdictional issues, and attorneys' fees." However, the facts of this case are different, as there has been no delay or deferral caused by the court. To the contrary, the trial court's October 31, 2023, order directed the Zorellas to "separately schedule for hearing their Second Amended Verified Motion to Dismiss and Quash Service of Process, and coordinate same with Plaintiff's counsel."
Further, arbitration and mediation are fundamentally different proceedings. The former constitutes a more invasive process than the latter. In an arbitration, like a judicial proceeding, the parties advocate to a neutral charged with rendering a decision, whereas a mediation is a non-adversarial process in which the parties control the outcome. The Zorellas offer no argument as to why an order to mediate, without more, constitutes a material injury for the remainder of the case incapable of correction by plenary review, necessitating the extraordinary remedy of certiorari relief.
Petition denied.