Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed June 23, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-355

Lower Tribunal No. 19-3418

________________

Kratos Holdings, LLC, a/k/a VIP Leasing,

Petitioner,

vs.

Direct Investments International, LLC, et al.,

Respondents.

A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mavel 

Ruiz, Judge.

Brodsky Fotiu-Wojtowicz, PLLC, and Benjamin H. Brodsky, for 

petitioner.

Brady Law Firm, P.A., and William Brady, Jr., for respondents.

Before HENDON, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ. 

HENDON, J.

The defendant below, Kratos Holdings, LLC, a/k/a VIP Leasing 
2

(“Petitioner” or “Defendant”), petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari, 

seeking to quash the trial court’s partial summary judgment entered in favor 

of the plaintiffs below, Direct Investments International, LLC, and Corenet 

Holdings, Ltd. (collectively, “Respondents” or “Plaintiffs”), allowing 

immediate execution of the monetary award. For the reasons that follow 

we grant the petition and quash the portion of the partial summary 

judgment authorizing immediate execution.

The Respondents filed suit against the Petitioner, seeking to enforce 

a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement required the Petitioner 

to make installment payments on certain dates to the Respondents’ 

counsel’s trust account, to either immediately deliver proceeds from the 

sale of specifically listed luxury vehicles to the Respondents’ counsel’s trust

account, and to deliver assignment of motor vehicle lienholder documents 

for other specifically listed luxury vehicles to Corenet Holdings. Count I of 

the amended complaint relates to the Petitioner’s alleged failure to make 

the certain installment payments due under the settlement agreement, and 

Counts II through VII relate to the Petitioner’s alleged failure to comply with 

the settlement agreement regarding specifically listed luxury vehicles—

either paying sums to the Respondents’ counsel upon the sale of 

specifically listed luxury vehicles and to deliver assignment of motor vehicle 
3

lienholder documents for other specifically listed luxury vehicles. All counts 

stem from the Respondents’ attempt to enforce the settlement agreement.

The Respondents filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to 

Count I of the amended complaint relating to the Petitioner’s failure to remit 

the installment payments. The trial court granted the Respondents’ motion 

for partial summary judgment and entered an “Executable Money 

Judgment” in favor of the Respondents in the amount of $288,239.99, plus 

an additional $44,475.43 in pre-judgment interest, “for which let execution 

issue forthwith and without delay.” In paragraph 17 of the Executable 

Money Judgment, the trial court stated:

Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(d) and given 

that the Plaintiff[s’] Amended Complaint has asserted additional 

affirmative claims seeking non-monetary damages, the Court 

holds that this case is not fully adjudicated upon the Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and shall retain 

jurisdiction over this cause for determination of these affirmative 

and un-adjudicated claims, along with any defenses which the 

Defendant may lodge against the same, by the Court or the trier 

of fact consistent herewith. 

The Court directs the Clerk of Court to maintain this case in an 

active and open status pursuant to the directives contained in 

the above referenced paragraph.

(emphasis in original).1

1 Contrary to the trial court’s finding in paragraph 17, in the remaining 

counts (Counts II through VII), the Respondents sought either a specific 

amount of monetary damages or “compensatory damages” arising from the 

breach of the settlement agreement.
4

Following the entry of the Executable Money Judgment, the Petitioner 

filed a notice of appeal. Thereafter, this Court ordered the Petitioner, in 

light of paragraph 17, to show cause why the appeal should not be 

dismissed as taken from a non-final, non-appealable order granting partial 

summary judgment. In response to the show cause order, rather than 

pursuing its appeal, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari, 

seeking to quash the Executable Money Judgment.

To obtain certiorari relief, the petitioner must establish “(1) a material 

injury in the proceedings that cannot be corrected on appeal (sometimes 

referred to as irreparable harm); and (2) a departure from the essential 

requirements of the law.” People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, 46 Fla. L. 

Weekly D287 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 3, 2021). The requirement of establishing 

irreparable harm is jurisdictional. See Am. Franchise Grp. LLC v. Gastone, 

46 Fla. L. Weekly D779 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 7, 2021).

In People’s Trust, the trial court granted partial summary judgment in 

favor of Gonzalez and ordered People’s Trust to pay Gonzalez monetary 

damages within ten days of the date of the order. The order, however, left 

other factually related claims unresolved. This Court treated People’s 

Trust’s notice of appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, and granted the 

petition for writ of certiorari and quashed the portion of the order requiring 
5

payment prior to the entry of a final judgment. In granting People’s Trust’s 

petition, this Court stated:

Courts have consistently found that an order resolving only part 

of a civil lawsuit by requiring a party to make an interim 

payment while leaving intertwined factual matters unresolved 

presents the type of irreparable harm and departure from the 

essential requirements of the law remediable by issuance of a 

writ of certiorari. See, e.g., Team Richco, LLC v. Rapid Sec.

Sols., LLC, 290 So. 3d 629, 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (issuing 

writ and quashing partial judgment that results in “irreparable 

injury where it authorizes execution prior to entry of a final, 

appealable order”); East Ave., LLC v. Insignia Bank, 136 So. 3d

659, 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (same).

People’s Tr., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D287.

In the instant case, although each count in the operative complaint 

relates to the Petitioner’s alleged failure to perform its obligations as set 

forth in the settlement agreement, all counts stem from the Respondents’ 

attempt to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement. Thus, we concluded 

that the partial summary judgment left intertwined factual matters 

unresolved. As such, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash 

the portion of the partial summary judgment authorizing immediate 

execution.

Petition granted; portion of the partial summary judgment authorizing 

immediate execution quashed.