Case Name: Zachary RICHARDSON, Donald Radcliff, David Sass, Robert Steiler Ronald Shindler, Marc Steinberg and Alan Sklar, Petitioners, v. Stephen GYVES, Richard Francis, James Spero, Bonnie Dalton, Fruins Pharmacy, John Hicks, Pat Patterson, Roger Porter, James Taylor and Robert Oman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Respondents
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2004-05-05
Citations: 874 So. 2d 658
Docket Number: No. 4D03-4913
Parties: Zachary RICHARDSON, Donald Radcliff, David Sass, Robert Steiler Ronald Shindler, Marc Steinberg and Alan Sklar, Petitioners, v. Stephen GYVES, Richard Francis, James Spero, Bonnie Dalton, Fruins Pharmacy, John Hicks, Pat Patterson, Roger Porter, James Taylor and Robert Oman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Respondents.
Judges: WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 874
Pages: 658–659

Head Matter:
Zachary RICHARDSON, Donald Radcliff, David Sass, Robert Steiler Ronald Shindler, Marc Steinberg and Alan Sklar, Petitioners, v. Stephen GYVES, Richard Francis, James Spero, Bonnie Dalton, Fruins Pharmacy, John Hicks, Pat Patterson, Roger Porter, James Taylor and Robert Oman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Respondents.
No. 4D03-4913.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
May 5, 2004.
Rehearing Denied June 23, 2004.
Matthew Triggs and Mary F. April of Proskauer Rose, LLP, Boca Raton, for petitioner Zachary Richardson.
Jonathan B. Butler of Steel, Hector & Davis, LLP, West Palm Beach, and Lewis F. Murphy of Steel, Hector & Davis, LLP, Miami for petitioners Donald Radcliff, David Sass, Robert Steiler, Ronald Shin-dler, Marc Steinberg, and Alan Sklar.
Robert D. Critton, Jr., and Rita Budnyk of Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, West Palm Beach, for respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The issue presented by this petition for certiorari is whether, before a class action is certified, discovery on the merits of the claim, which is not relevant to the issue of class certification, should be permitted. While the petitioner's suggested sequence of discovery makes good sense, we do not reach the merits of the issue because the petitioner has faded to demonstrate irreparable harm. In re Estate of Sauey v. Sauey, 869 So.2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); see also Martin-Johnson, Inc., v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Fla.1987) ("[C]om-mon law certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and should not be used to circumvent the interlocutory appeal rule which authorizes appeal from only a few types of non-final orders."). But see Policastro v. Stelk, 780 So.2d 989 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
The petition is therefore dismissed.
WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur.
KLEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.