### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

MICHAEL D. TOTH and LINAWATI TOTH, Petitioners
,

v.

EUGENE W. TOTH, MARIE TOTH, and BRYAN E. TOTH, derivatively on behalf of LEARNING SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Respondents

.

No. 4D 22

- 2628

[ April 12, 2023 ]

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Fif teenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach Coun ty ; G. Joseph Curley , Judge; L.T. Case No. 2021CA003506AI

. John R. Hart, Dean A. Morande, and Alexandra D. Blye of Carlton Fields, P.A., West Palm Beach, for petitioners

. Stuart N. Kaplan and Thomas J. Ali of The Law Offices of Stuart N. Kaplan, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for respondents.

G ERBER , J

. The petitioners , who are the plaintiffs in an earlier

- filed Pennsylvania action, seek certiorari review of the circuit court’s order denying the ir renewed motion to stay the respondents’ later

- filed Florida action . The petitioners argue t he circuit court ’s order departe d from the essential requirements of law because the r espondents ’ later

- filed Florida action seeks re lief which , if granted, would conflict with t rial court orders already entered in the petitioners’ favor in their earlier

- filed Pennsylvania action
, th ereb y causing them irreparable harm

. We agree with the petitioners’ argument , and therefore grant the ir petition for writ of certiorari . In the following two sections, we will provide the applicable law and our reasoning

.2 Applicable Law

T he denial of a motion to stay an action pending resolution of a related

case is subject to certiorari review

. REWJB Gas Invs. v. Land O ’ Sun Realty
, Ltd., 645 So. 2d 1055, 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). That is because

“ e xposure to a potential inconsistent ruling on the same issue by another court constitutes irreparable harm.” Inphynet Contracting Servs. , Inc. v. Matthews , 196 So. 3d 449, 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ; see also Bared & Co. v. McGuire , 670 So. 2d 153, 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (the two indispensable ingredients to c ommon law certiorari when sought to review pretrial orders of the circuit courts are : “ (1) irreparable injury to the petitioner that cannot be corrected on final appeal [,] (2) caused by a departure from the essential requirements of law ”).

A s a matter of comity, a Florida court has discretion to stay “a proceeding pending before it on the grounds that a case involving the same subject matter and parties is pending in the court of another state.” Bedingfield v. Bedingfield , 417 So. 2d 1047, 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). “A bsent extraordinary circumstances, a trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to respect the principle of priority. ” Perelman v. Estate of Perelman , 124 So. 3d 983, 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) ( citation omitted)

. “T his does not mean that a trial court must always stay proceedings when prior proceedings involving the same issues and parties are pending before a court in another state, but only that ordinarily this should be the result. ” Id. ( citation
, brackets , and q uotation marks omitted). The e xceptional circumstances which may support den ying a stay include, for example, time

- sensitive cases involving child custody, visitation, and support , or probate issues

. See, e.g., Maraj v. Maraj, 642 So. 2d 1103
, 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (child custody, visitation, and support) ; Parker v. Estate of Bealer , 890 So. 2d 508, 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (probate)

. “In applying the principle of priority, the pivotal question is whether the second

- filed action is sufficiently similar in parties and issues as to be unnecessarily duplicative of the prior

- filed proceeding.” I n

phynet , 196 So. 3d at 464 (citation omitted )

.
However, t he principle of priority does not “require an absolute identity of parties between the two actions” to justify entering a stay. I d. at 464

- 65 (citations omitted)

. Nor does the principle of priority require that causes of action be identical to justify a stay of the second

- filed action

. Fedorov v. Citizens State Bank , 24 So. 3d 1227, 1229 (Fla . 3d DCA 2009)

. Rather, “ it is sufficient that the two actions involve a single set of facts and that resolution of the [earlier

- filed] case will resolve many of the issues3 involved in the subsequently filed case.” Id. (citation, other brackets
, and quotation marks omitted)

. Our Reasoning

Applying the foregoing law to the instant case
, we conclude the Florida court departed from the essential requirements of law
, causing irreparable harm to the petitioners, when it denied their renewed motion to stay the respondents’ later

- filed Florida action.

T he parties in both the petitioners’ earlier

- filed Pennsyl v ania action and the respondents’ later

- filed Florida action are virtually the same

. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania action and the defendants in the Florida action . T he respondents are the defendants in the Pennsylvania action and the plaintiffs in the Florida action. The only difference i s that, in the Pennsylvania action, the respondents are named as de fendants in their individual capacities, while in the Florida action, the r espondents brought the ir action derivatively on behalf of a limited liability company (“the LLC”) which is at the center of the parties’ dispute

.

H owever, we do not consider this difference to be material, because the operative issue at the core of both actions is whether the petitioners or the respondents are entitled to control the LLC

. This issue already has been heavily litigated in the petitioners’ earlier

- filed Pennsylvania action, and the respondents are seeking to re

- litigate th is issue in their later

- filed Florida action. For example:

• I n the earlier

- filed Pennsylvania action, t he c ourt alr eady has entered s ummary j udgment o rders finding that a 2012 o perating

a greement espoused by the petitioners is controlling, while an alleged o perating a greement espoused by the respondents is void ab initio. Notwithstanding those orders , the r espondents’ later

- filed Florida action requests the Florida c ourt to declare that the alleged 2021 o perating a greement is controlling.

• In the earlier

- filed Pennsylvania action, the court already has entered an order holding that because the members are ir retrievably deadlocked , the LLC is to be dissolved , for which the court already has appointed a l iquidating t rustee. Likewise, when the respondents appealed th at d issolution o rder , the Pennsylvania court appointed a c ustodian to preserve the LLC’s assets and protect its rights. Notwithstanding those orders
, the r espondents ’ later

- filed Florida action requests the Florida c ourt to appoint a receiver to4 perform the same function already being performed by the Pennsylvania

- appointed c ustodian.

The r esponden ts have argued their later

- filed Florida action was necessary to preserve their objection to the Pennsylvania court’s jurisdiction. However, the Pennsylvania c ourt already has entered an order determin ing it has personal jurisdiction over the r espondents

. The respondents’ route for seeking relief from that order was through the Pennsylvania appellate process, not through the later

- filed Florida action.

Conclusion

In sum , t he relief which the respondents seek in the later

- filed Florida action , if granted, would conflict with one or more orders already entered in the earlier

- filed Pennsylvania action , the existence of which would constitute irreparable harm to the petitioners

. Thus
, the Florida circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law in denying the petitioners’ renewed motion to stay the later

- filed Florida action. The circuit court should have entered an order staying the later

- filed Florida action until a final judgment is entered and any appeals are exhausted in the earlier

- filed Pennsylvania action

. See Inphynet , 196 So. 3d at 464 (“Principles of comity between sovereigns suggest that a court of one state should stay a proceeding pending before it on grounds that a prior

- filed case involving substantially the same subject matter and parties is pending in another state’s courts.”) (citation omitted)

. Based on the foregoing, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari an d quash the circuit c ourt’s o rder denying the petitioners’ r enewed motion for

s tay . On remand, we direct the circuit c ourt to enter an order granting the petitioners’ renewed motion for stay , which order shall provide that t he later

- filed Florida a ction s hall remain stayed until a final judgment is entered and any appeals are exhausted in the earlier

- filed Pennsylvania action

. Petition granted ; remanded with directions

.

C IKLIN and L EVINE , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.