From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Prime Computer, Inc. v. Mulholland

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Nov 9, 1990
571 So. 2d 515 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Opinion

No. 90-02024.

November 9, 1990.

Petition for review from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, John G. Hodges, Retired Judge.

Judith W. Simmons and Frances H. Toomey of Foley Lardner Hill, Tampa, for petitioner.

G. Donovan Conwell, Jr. and Jeffrey M. Paskert of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal Banker, P.A., Tampa, for respondent.


Prime Computer, Inc., petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to review an order of the circuit court requiring it to furnish certain discovery to respondent Richard Mulholland. Mulholland has advised this court that he has withdrawn the contested discovery requests. Accordingly, that portion of the petition is now moot.

Prime Computer's petition also asks this court to review a second order, entered contemporaneously with the discovery order, which denies its motion to dismiss counts I and II of Mulholland's third amended complaint. Prime Computer asserts that the charges made therein are without merit and are "serious and damaging to Prime's reputation." Nevertheless, we are bound by the well-established principle that certiorari will not lie to review the denial of a motion to dismiss. See Martin-Johnson v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (1987).

Petition for certiorari denied.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and CAMPBELL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Prime Computer, Inc. v. Mulholland

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Nov 9, 1990
571 So. 2d 515 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)
Case details for

Prime Computer, Inc. v. Mulholland

Case Details

Full title:PRIME COMPUTER, INC., PETITIONER, v. RICHARD R. MULHOLLAND, RESPONDENT

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Nov 9, 1990

Citations

571 So. 2d 515 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Citing Cases

BAP Newleaf, LLC v. Hillcrest Bank

The petition for writ of certiorari is hereby dismissed as moot. See Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v.…