Opinion
SC21-1216
09-30-2021
IVAN KAPITANOV, ET AL. Petitioner(s) v. VASILE SILVIU VRANAU, ET AL. Respondent(s)
Lower Tribunal No(s).: 3D20-1928; 132020CA021380000001
To the extent that Petitioners seek a writ of prohibition, the petition is hereby denied because Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that a lower court is attempting to act in excess of its jurisdiction. See Mandico v. Taos Constr., Inc., 605 So.2d 850 (Fla. 1992); English v. McCrary, 348 So.2d 293 (Fla. 1977). To the extent that Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus, the petition is dismissed as unauthorized pursuant to Mathews v. Crews, 132 So.3d 776 (Fla. 2014) (stating that "mandamus is not the proper vehicle to seek review of an allegedly erroneous decision by a lower court and cannot be used to circumvent the constitutional restrictions on this Court's jurisdiction to review lower court decisions"). To the extent that Petitioners seek to invoke the Court's all writs jurisdiction, the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Williams v. State, 913 So.2d 541 (Fla. 2005); St. Paul Title Ins. Corp. v. Davis, 392 So.2d 1304 (Fla. 1980). No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained.LABARGA, LAWSON, MUNIZ, COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.