Posts

What Do I Do if the Other Side Files a Writ of Certiorari, Prohibition, or Mandamus in Florida Cases?

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , /by

Writs of Certiorari, Writs of Mandamus, and Writs of Prohibition are three different ways a party in Florida state court litigation can seek appellate court intervention even though the judge has not made a final decision. If the other side seeks one of these writs from the appellate court, what do you need to do to protect yourself?

No Response Required — at First

The party who files a petition for a writ is referred to in the appellate court as the Petitioner, and the party who won the trial court victory is referred to in the appellate court is called the Respondent. But in most cases, a Respondent is neither required nor allowed to respond to the Petition. A response is only allowed if ordered by the appellate court. The appellate court will first review the petition and decide whether it needs or wants a response. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 9.100(h) states that if the Court believes the petition “demonstrates a preliminary basis for relief,” the Court will issue an “order to show cause” asking the Respondent to explain why relief should not be granted. The Court could also instead direct the Respondent to file a response. Either order will state a deadline for the Respondent to respond.

Do I Need Appellate Counsel?

It is a good idea to consult with appellate counsel if the other side files a writ. Appellate counsel can help in several ways. First, appellate counsel can provide an initial assessment of how likely the appellate court is to request a response. Second, appellate counsel can be at the ready in case the appellate court does order a response. The Court will set a deadline, and depending on how urgent the issues in the petition are, the deadline might be quite fast. Bringing appellate counsel on board as soon as the writ is filed can help ensure that you are ready to respond quickly if ordered. Third, if a response is ordered, appellate counsel is generally much more familiar with the procedural and jurisdictional quirks of these rare writs, and will often be in a better position to show the appellate court why the writ should not be granted based on appellate counsel’s wider experience in appellate standards of review. And finally, separate appellate counsel can allow your trial counsel to stay focused on the main litigation, which is most likely moving forward even though the writ is pending.

If you are on the receiving end of an extraordinary writ — whether it is a writ of certiorari, a writ of mandamus, or a writ of prohibition, consider engaging appellate counsel for a substantive consultation and/or to appear on your behalf in the appellate court. If we can help, feel free to contact us at 813-778-5161 or fill out our intake form here to initiate scheduling a consultation.

Voluntary Dismissal Leads to (almost) Writ of Prohibition

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

The Third District recently confirmed that a trial court loses jurisdiction over the substance of a case once a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses under Rule 1.420(a)(1), and that with only one rare exception a Court cannot set aside such a dismissal. U.S. Bank N.A. v. Rivera, Case No. 3D15-1415 (Fla. 3d Dist. April
27, 2016) [.pdf].

The case has a complicated procedural history: The Bank initiated foreclosure in 2009, and served the defendants by publication, obtaining a default judgment. In 2011, the Bank sought to vacate and set aside that judgment, citing “irregularities in the actions taken by its former counsel,” and the Riveras, too, sought to relief from the judgment pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540. Id. at 2. In 2013, the trial court finally entered the Bank’s 1.540 motion to vacate the judgment, and shortly thereafter, the Bank voluntarily dismissed the foreclosure action. Id. at 3.

The Riveras, however, did not stop litigating. They moved to set aside the voluntary dismissal for fraud on the court, attempted to engage in discovery to uncover the fraud, and sought sanctions against the Bank for failing to comply with the discovery. The Bank eventually sought the instant writ of prohibition to stop the trial court from continuing to exercise jurisdiction over the dismissed case.

What is a Writ of Prohibition?

A writ of prohibition is not an appeal in the traditional sense. Rather, it is an action, on the original jurisdiction of the district court of appeal, “to prevent courts from acting when there is no jurisdiction to act.” Sutton v. State, 975 So. 2d 1073, 1076 (Fla. 2008); see also Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(3). Here, seeking a writ of prohibition was the appropriate remedy, because the party contended that the trial court was continuing to act even though it lacked jurisdiction to do so.

Citing to the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Pino v. Bank of New York, 121 So. 3d 23 (Fla. 2013), the Court ruled that the Rivera’s attempts to secure a dismissal with prejudice were not authorized by Rule 1.540. Specifically, the Court explained that “a trial court has neither the authority under rule 1.540 nor the inherent authority to grant relief from a voluntary dismissal where fraud on the court is alleged but no affirmative relief has been granted to the dismissing plaintiff.” Id. at 4-5.

Interestingly, the appellate court stopped just shy of actually issuing the writ of prohibition. When initiating a writ of prohibition, the rules require that the petitioner name the judge or lower tribunal as a “formal party to the petition” in the body of the petition, but not add the judge’s name to the caption. Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(e). The opinion ruled in favor of the petitioner, but the court stated that it would “withhold issuance of this court’s writ confident that the court below will refrain from further action in this matter.” In other words, the Court did not want to embarrass the trial judge, but ordered him or her to stop taking action in the case.