Case Name: MAJESTIC SUN OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., etc., Petitioner, v. FLORIDA CONDOS I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, etc., et al., Respondents
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2005-03-10
Citations: 895 So. 2d 534
Docket Number: No. 1D04-1625
Parties: MAJESTIC SUN OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC., etc., Petitioner, v. FLORIDA CONDOS I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, etc., et al., Respondents.
Judges: WOLF, C.J., BARFIELD and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 895
Pages: 534–535

Head Matter:
MAJESTIC SUN OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC., etc., Petitioner, v. FLORIDA CONDOS I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, etc., et al., Respondents.
No. 1D04-1625.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
March 10, 2005.
Leslie D. SheeUey, Esq. and Karen L. Arnett, Esq. of Chesser & Barr, P.A., Sha-limar, for Petitioner.
Lorence Jon Bielby, Esq. and John K. Londot, Esq. of Greenberg, Traurig, P.A., Tallahassee for respondent Florida Condos I Limited Partnership
C. Jeffrey Mclnnis, Esq. and Lawrence Keefe, Esq. of Anchors, Foster, Mclnnis & Keefe, P.A., Ft. Walton Beach for respondent Fairfield Resorts, Inc.
William S. Henry, Esq. of Burke & Blue, P.A., Panama City for respondent Seascape Resorts, Inc.
Thomas J. Roehn, Esq. of Carlton Fields, P.A., Tampa for respondent Fair-field Resorts, Inc.
Bruce D. Partington, Esq. of Clark, Partington, Hart, Larry, Bond & Stack-house, Pensacola for respondents Florida Condos I Limited Partnership, Florida Development Group, LLC, and Housing Developers, IV, LLC.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We DENY the petition for writ of cer-tiorari on the merits to the extent that petitioner argues that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in dissolving a notice of lis pendens. We DISMISS the petition to the extent that petitioner argues that the trial court erred in denying its request to amend its complaint as to certain counts. See Bared & Co. v. McGuire, 670 So.2d 153, 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (holding that a petition for writ of certiorari should be dismissed if there has been an insufficient showing of irreparable harm and should be denied when it is determined that an order did not depart from the essential requirements of law); see also Venus Labs., Inc. v. Katz, 573 So.2d 993, 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Sciabbarrasi v. Uddo, 466 So.2d 19, 20 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Hawaiian Inn of Daytona Beach Inc. v. Snead Constr. Corp., 393 So.2d 1201, 1201-02 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
WOLF, C.J., BARFIELD and LEWIS, JJ., concur.