Case Name: NATIONAL BEVERAGE SUPPLIERS, INC., a/k/a Esquire Screen Printing, Inc., A Florida corporation, and William Roberson, Petitioners, v. ESQUIRE PRODUCTS OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, and Gerald Nicholas Kalen, Sr., Respondents
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-09-10
Citations: 493 So. 2d 551
Docket Number: No. 4-86-0077
Parties: NATIONAL BEVERAGE SUPPLIERS, INC., a/k/a Esquire Screen Printing, Inc., A Florida corporation, and William Roberson, Petitioners, v. ESQUIRE PRODUCTS OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, and Gerald Nicholas Kalen, Sr., Respondents.
Judges: DOWNEY, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 493
Pages: 551–553

Head Matter:
NATIONAL BEVERAGE SUPPLIERS, INC., a/k/a Esquire Screen Printing, Inc., A Florida corporation, and William Roberson, Petitioners, v. ESQUIRE PRODUCTS OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, and Gerald Nicholas Kalen, Sr., Respondents.
No. 4-86-0077.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Sept. 10, 1986.
Milton Philip Shafran of Shafran & Martin, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners.
Gerald L. Knight of Gustafson, Stephens, Ferris, Forman & Hall, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for respondents.

Opinion:
WALDEN, Judge.
This is a petition for common law certio-rari. It seeks to quash an order of protection, which order had the effect of limiting discovery.
Only assuming and not deciding that the order may be erroneous, it is our opinion that petitioner will have a full and adequate remedy in the form of a plenary appeal following final judgment, if then needed. We deny the petition upon authority of Esman v. Board of Regents of the State of Florida, 425 So.2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), and United Services Automobile Association v. Byrd, 370 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
DENIED.
DOWNEY, J., concurs.
GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.
. We decline to create an anomaly by, on the one hand, declining to exercise jurisdiction and, on the other hand, attempting to decide or discuss the merits of the order of protection with dicta. In our opinion such would be inappropriate. See Capricorn Marble Co. v. George Hyman Construction Co., 462 So.2d 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).