Petitions for Writs of
Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto, or Habeas Corpus: APPELLATE PROCEDURE - Appealability/Improper Relief - Petition for Writ
of Prohibition was an inappropriate collateral challenge to Small Claims
Court’s exercise of jurisdiction where direct appeal based on Small Claims
Court’s lack of jurisdiction was currently pending. Petitioner had not sought less extraordinary
relief to prevent Small Claims Court from entertaining fee petition. Petition denied. Daniel
LaSalla v. Pools By George of Pinellas County, Inc., No.
10-000012AP-88B (Fla. 6th Cir. App. Ct. March 12, 2010).
NOT
FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND
APPELLATE DIVISION
DANIEL LASALLA,
Petitioner,
vs. Ref.
No.: 10-000012AP-88B
UCN: 522010AP000012XXXXCV
POOLS BY GEORGE OF
PINELLAS COUNTY, INC.,
Respondent.
______________________________/
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Prohibition
filed by Petitioner Daniel LaSalla on March 2, 2010, seeking to prevent the
Honorable Edwin B. Jagger, Pinellas County Court Judge, from entering any
further orders and judgments in the underlying Small Claims Court action, Case
No. 06-006095SC 046. More specifically,
Petitioner seeks a Writ prohibiting
Respondent
PBG filed a two-count complaint in Small Claims Court seeking to foreclose a
construction lien, to which LaSalla asserted a counterclaim and affirmative
defenses. The action proceeded to trial
on June 9, 2009, and the Honorable Edwin B. Jagger entered Final Judgment in
favor of PBG on August 4, 2009. LaSalla,
through current counsel, filed a Motion to Set Aside Final Judgment, arguing
that the Final Judgment is void because the Small Claims Court lacks equity
jurisdiction and thus lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the lien
foreclosure claim. The Court denied the Motion
by Order dated December 18, 2009.
LaSalla filed a Motion for Rehearing, which the Court denied on January
11, 2010. PBG filed Plaintiff’s Amended
Motion to Tax Attorney Fees and Costs, and Assess Prejudgment Interest and
scheduled a hearing on March 15, 2010.
On
January 21, 2010, LaSalla appealed the Court’s January 11, 2010,[1] Order
Denying Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Final Judgment Notice. His appeal, Case No. 10-000003AP-88A, remains
pending.
By the instant petition,
LaSalla again argues that the Small Claims Court is wholly without subject
matter jurisdiction over this action and thus has no jurisdiction to entertain the
pending Motion for fees, award fees, or enter any further orders or
judgments. He contends that Prohibition
is the appropriate remedy to prevent the Small Claims Court from acting in the
absence of subject matter jurisdiction and that he has no adequate remedy on appeal.
The Circuit Court is
authorized to enter Writs of Prohibition under Rule 9.030h(c)(3) of the Florida
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Prohibition is an extraordinary writ, a prerogative writ, extremely
narrow in scope and operation, by which a superior court, having appellate and
supervisory jurisdiction over an inferior court or tribunal possessing judicial
or quasi-judicial power, may prevent such inferior court or tribunal from
exceeding jurisdiction or usurping jurisdiction over matters not within its
jurisdiction.
English
v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d
293, 296 (Fla. 1977). While Prohibition lies to prevent an inferior
tribunal from acting in excess of jurisdiction, it does not to prevent an
erroneous exercise of jurisdiction.
Contrary
to LaSalla’s contention that he has no adequate remedy on appeal, his objection
to the Small Claims Court’s exercise of jurisdiction is currently pending
appeal. This Court will not consider the
exact same issue raised collaterally by the instant petition. Moreover, there is no indication that
Petitioner has sought less extraordinary relief, such as requesting a Stay of
proceedings by the Small Claims Court pending resolution of the matter on
appeal or a continuance of the fee hearing.
Under these circumstances, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that a
writ of prohibition is appropriate or necessary.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for Writ of Prohibition is DENIED.
DONE
AND ORDERED in Chambers, at St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida, this
12th day of March 2010.
Original order entered on March 12, 2010 by
Circuit Judges Amy M. Williams,
Peter Ramsberger, and Pamela A.M. Campbell.
Copies furnished to:
THE HONORABLE EDWIN JAGGER
Pinellas
St. Petersburg
COURTNEY L. FISH, ESQUIRE
LEONARD S. ENGLANDER, ESQUIRE
Englander & Fischer, P.A.
Attorney for the Petitioner
THOMAS DANDAR, ESQUIRE
Dandar & Dandar, P.A.
Attorney for Respondent