Case Name: BOWL AMERICA FLORIDA, INC., a Florida Corporation, and Proprietors' Insurance Company, a Foreign Insurance Corporation, Petitioners, v. Richard L. SCHMIDT, and Nancy Schmidt, his wife, Respondents
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1980-03-12
Citations: 386 So. 2d 1203
Docket Number: No. 79-439
Parties: BOWL AMERICA FLORIDA, INC., a Florida Corporation, and Proprietors’ Insurance Company, a Foreign Insurance Corporation, Petitioners, v. Richard L. SCHMIDT, and Nancy Schmidt, his wife, Respondents.
Judges: DAUKSCH, C. J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 386
Pages: 1203–1206

Head Matter:
BOWL AMERICA FLORIDA, INC., a Florida Corporation, and Proprietors’ Insurance Company, a Foreign Insurance Corporation, Petitioners, v. Richard L. SCHMIDT, and Nancy Schmidt, his wife, Respondents.
No. 79-439.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
March 12, 1980.
Jeff B. Clark, Orlando, and Marcia K. Lippincott, Sanford, for petitioners.
Patrick A. Raley, Winter Park, for respondents.

Opinion:
SHARP, Judge.
The defendants, Bowl America Florida, Inc., and Proprietors' Insurance Company, filed a Petition for common law certiorari with this Court to review an order entered by the trial court denying the defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute. We deny the Petition because this Court does not have jurisdiction to review this kind of interlocutory order under the new Appellate Rules.
Rule 9.030(b)(2), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure allows review of "non-final orders of lower tribunals other than as prescribed by Rule 9.130 . . .". But the types of cases reviewable are limited. There must clearly be a "departure from the essential requirements of [the] law." Thibadeau v. Santini Bros., 315 So.2d 550, 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). The petitioners urge that the expense of proceeding to trial and raising the correctness of the trial court's order on appeal justifies this Court's acceptance of certiorari jurisdiction. These grounds are not sufficient to justify certio-rari review. Whiteside v. Johnson, 351 So.2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Neale v. Redins Corp., 320 So.2d 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
Under Rule 4.2 of the now superseded Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, numerous cases reached the District Courts of Appeal concerning the refusal of lower courts to dismiss cases for failure to prosecute. See Greyhound Corporation v. Estevez, 360 So.2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA. 1978); Lake Crescent Dev. Corp. v. Flowers, 355 So.2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). In 1968 Rule 4.2 of the Florida Appellate Rules was amended to expressly include among the appeala-ble interlocutory orders "orders granting or denying dismissal for lack of prosecution." In Re Florida Appellate Rules, 211 So.2d 198, 199, (Fla.1968).
Rule 9.130 of the new Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure states that interlocutory appeals shall be limited to those categories specifically listed in the Rule. Significantly, orders of the kind sought to be reviewed in this case were dropped. This significant omission would be rendered meaningless if we were to accept routinely the review of such orders by certiorari. We decline jurisdiction and deny the petition. See Suez Company v. Hodgins, 137 So.2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).
Petition for writ of common law certiora-ri is DENIED.
DAUKSCH, C. J., concurs.
UPCHURCH, J., dissenting with opinion.