ANCHOR PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. EDUARDO TESINI

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed March 24, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1445 Lower Tribunal No. 18-39891 ________________

Anchor Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Petitioner,

vs.

Eduardo Tesini, Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Peter R. Lopez, Judge.

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 requitements of law. In re Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Miami Perfume Junction, Inc. v. Osborne, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D24, 2020 WL 7636020, at *2-3 (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.