19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1063a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1913PEARInsurance — Appeals — Nonfinal orders — Certiorari review of nonfinal order denying or striking demand for jury trial is inappropriate — Petition denied
STATE FARM AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. STEVEN R. PEARLSTEIN, M.D., P.A., Respondent. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case No. 12-13567 CACE (12). L.T. Case No. 10-6982 COCE (53). Counsel: Yasmin Gilinsky, Law Office of Russel Lazega, Dania Beach, for Petitioner. Nancy Gregoire, Kirschbaum, Birnbaum, Lippman & Gregoire, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for Respondent.
FINAL ORDER DENYING PETITIONFOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
(GATES, Judge.) THIS CAUSE came before the court on State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s (“Petitioner”) petition for writ of certiorari. The court having considered the filings of the parties and being duly advised in premises and law, finds and decides as follows:
Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that is entirely within the discretion of the court. See Haines City Community Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 526 (Fla. 1995) [20 Fla. L. Weekly S318a]. Certiorari is not a remedy that can be used simply because the order in question is not appealable and should not be used to circumvent the rules governing appeals from pretrial orders. See State v. Smith, 951 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) [32 Fla. L. Weekly D681c]; Fassy v. Crowley, 884 So. 2d 359, 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) [29 Fla. L. Weekly D2050a]. Certiorari is appropriate to review a pretrial order when the petitioner shows that the decision by the lower court is a departure from the essential requirements of the law and that it cause a material injury that cannot be corrected on appeal from the final judgment. See Belair v. Drew, 770 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly S741a]; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1995) [20 Fla. L. Weekly S217a].
The Supreme Court of Florida has held that certiorari review is inappropriate to review a nonfinal order denying or striking a party’s demand for jury trial because the trial court’s order does not cause an irreparable injury that cannot be remedied on direct appeal. Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc., 720 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1998) [23 Fla. L. Weekly S551a].
Appellant argues that this case is similar to Anderson v. Helen Ellis Memorial Hosp. Found., Inc., 66 So. 3d 1095, 1101 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D1847a]. In that case, the court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion to lift abatement and the court found that there is no adequate remedy for the delay caused by abatement after final judgment. Therefore, Anderson is distinguishable from Jaye in that denying or striking a demand for a jury trial does not cause an irreparable injury that cannot be remedied on direct appeal. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari is DENIED.
* * *
