Case ID: so3d_198/html/0725-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. CASANUEVA, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DIOCESE OF VENICE IN FLORIDA, INC; Diocese of Venice in Florida, a corporate sole; Bishop Dewane, as corporate sole of the Diocese of Venice; and Robert Little, Petitioners, v. Mother DOE, o/b/o G.G. Doe; and Paul Doe, o/b/o John Doe, Respondents.
    No. 2D15-3360.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Feb. 5, 2016.
    
      Hala Sandridge, Carl Joseph Coleman, and.David C, Potter of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Fort Myers, for Petitioners Diocese-of Venice in Florida, Inc.; Diocese of Venice in Florida, a corporate sole; and Bishop Dewane, as corporate sole of the Diocese of Venice.
    Geraldo -,F. Olivo III of The Wilbur Smith Law Firm, LLC, Fort Myers, .for Petitioner Robert Little.
    Adam;' D. Horowitz of Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards," Fistos & Lehrman, P.L., Fort Lauderdale; and Scot D. Goldberg of Goldberg, Racila, D’Alessan-dro & Noone, LLC, Fort Myers, for Respondent, Mother Doe.
    Marcus W. Viles of Viles & Beckman, LLC, Fort Myers, for Respondent, Paul Doe.
   PER CURIAM.

Denied.

VILLANTI, C.J., and MORRIS, J., Concur.

CASANUEVA, J., Concurs with opinion.

CASANUEVA, Judge,

Concurring.

I agree that this petition for writ of certiorari must be denied because the trial cóurt did riot depart from the essential requirements of the law in ordering an ex parte hearing. See Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So.2d 646, 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (holding that a petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari “must establish (1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the trial (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal”). However, I note that the closure of civil proceedings is governed by Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So.2d 113 (Fla.1988), and compliance with Canon 3B(7) of the Code of Judicial Conduct does not necessarily meet the requirements outlined in Barron. Regardless, this issue was not raised in the trial court or in this court, and this court is precluded from addressing it in this limited certiorari proceeding.