Case Name: Rick SWEARINGEN, individually and in his official capacity, and Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Petitioners, v. Christopher PRETZER, an individual; Mark L. Wood, an individual; Richard A. Barsky, an individual; Richard Chamnes, an individual, Edward Henry, an individual, Florida Carry, Inc., a Florida not-for-profit corporation; and U.S. Law Shield Legal Expense Insurance Corp., a Florida for-profit corporation, Respondents.
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2019-06-24
Citations: 273 So. 3d 1196
Docket Number: No. 1D19-2053
Parties: Rick SWEARINGEN, individually and in his official capacity, and Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Petitioners,
v.
Christopher PRETZER, an individual; Mark L. Wood, an individual; Richard A. Barsky, an individual; Richard Chamnes, an individual, Edward Henry, an individual, Florida Carry, Inc., a Florida not-for-profit corporation; and U.S. Law Shield Legal Expense Insurance Corp., a Florida for-profit corporation, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 273
Pages: 1196–1197

Head Matter:
Rick SWEARINGEN, individually and in his official capacity, and Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Petitioners,
v.
Christopher PRETZER, an individual; Mark L. Wood, an individual; Richard A. Barsky, an individual; Richard Chamnes, an individual, Edward Henry, an individual, Florida Carry, Inc., a Florida not-for-profit corporation; and U.S. Law Shield Legal Expense Insurance Corp., a Florida for-profit corporation, Respondents.
No. 1D19-2053
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
June 24, 2019
Robert J. Sniffen and Jeffrey D. Slanker of Sniffen & Spellman, P.A., Tallahassee, for Petitioners.
No appearance for Respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Petitioners having failed to demonstrate entitlement to either certiorari relief or prohibition relief, the petition for writ of certiorari and for writ of prohibition is dismissed.
Wolf, J., concurs; Wetherell, J., concurs in result with opinion; Makar, J., dissents with opinion.
Wetherell, J., concurring in result.
I concur in the dismissal of this case because the order challenged in the petition is properly reviewed by appeal under rule 9.130(a)(3)(B) and this case is duplicative of the earlier-filed and still-pending appeal filed by these same petitioners challenging the same order.