Case Name: Carlos A. SEGURA, et al., Petitioners, v. Fernando Segura RODRIGUEZ, et al., Respondents
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2011-05-18
Citations: 61 So. 3d 1225
Docket Number: No. 3D10-3023
Parties: Carlos A. SEGURA, et al., Petitioners, v. Fernando Segura RODRIGUEZ, et al., Respondents.
Judges: Before GERSTEN and SHEPHERD, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 61
Pages: 1225–1226

Head Matter:
Carlos A. SEGURA, et al., Petitioners, v. Fernando Segura RODRIGUEZ, et al., Respondents.
No. 3D10-3023.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 18, 2011.
Dunwody White & Landon and Jack A. Falk, Jr., and Jeremy P. Leathe, Coral Gables; Shutts & Bowen and Candice Manes and Jonathan Cohen, for petitioners.
Elizabeth K. Russo and Susan S. Lerner, Miami; Beasley & Demos, for respondents.
Before GERSTEN and SHEPHERD, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So.2d 646, 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) ("[J]ust as an appellant must establish that a nonfinal order falls within one of the authorized categories in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 before this court has the power to review the merits of the nonfinal order by appeal, a petitioner must establish that an interlocutory order creates material harm irreparable by postjudgment appeal before this court has power to determine whether the order departs from the essential requirements of the law. If the jurisdictional prongs of the standard three-part test [ (1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the trial (3) that cannot be corrected on post-judgment appeal] are not fulfilled, then the petition should be dismissed rather than denied.").