Champaign v. SOS Industries
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2003 CHAMPAIGN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST, Petitioner, v. Case No. 5D03-1009 SOS INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL. Respondents. __________________________________/ Opinion filed June 27, 2003 Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, J. David Walsh, Judge. S. LaRue Williams and MaryEllen G. Koberg of Kinsey Vincent Pyle, P.A., Daytona Beach, and Frances Floriano Goins of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P., Cleveland, Ohio, for Petitioner. J. Lester Kaney of Cobb & Cole, Daytona Beach, William Christopher Carmody of Susman Godfrey L.L.P. Dallas Texas and Ian B. Crosby, Seattle, Washington for Respondents. PLEUS, J. Champaign National Bank and Trust seeks certiorari review of an interlocutory order denying Champaign's renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings. We deny the petition for writ of certiorari. Champaign argues that irreparable harm exists in this case to justify certiorari review based on an alleged pattern of harassment litigation to coerce Champaign to settle thus placing a "special burden" on Champaign. available to review non-final Certiorari is not generally interlocutory orders denying motions to dismiss or equivalent motions for judgment on the pleadings because the aggrieved party has a remedy on appeal. See Martin-Johnson v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987); H.L.O.T. Family Limited Property Owner's Ass'n, Partnership v. Magnolia Plantation Inc. 801 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Certiorari is not a writ of expediency and cannot be used to circumvent the non-final appeal rule. Children and Families, 769 So. 2d452 See S.H. v. Dept. of (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Hawaiian Inn of Daytona Beach, Inc. V. Snead Const. Corp., 393 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Champaign's alleged "special burden" does not create irreparable harm to justify certiorari review. Any alleged pretrial "harassment" should be addressed to the trial court in its sound discretion to control the case below. PETITION DENIED. 2 THOMPSON, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
