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.
2
