Court Opinion

ID: 9902577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 15:20:16.10034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:54.663077
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                   _____________________________

                        Case No. 5D22-2998
                   LT Case No. 2021-CA-31847-X
                   _____________________________

GARY J. GANIBAN, M.D.,
MICHAEL N. MANDESE, M.D.,
JASON K. DARLINGTON, M.D.,
ERIC STRAUT, O.D., and HETAL
VAISHNAV, M.D.,

    Petitioners,

    v.

JAMES N. MCMANUS, M.D.,
INDIVIDUALLY, and on behalf of
Southwoods Investment, LLC,
1995 NASA GROUP, LLC, AND
FLORIDA EYE CONSULTANTS,
INC.,

    Respondents.
               _____________________________

Petition for Certiorari Review of Orders
from the Circuit Court for Brevard County.
John Dean Moxley, Jr., Judge.

Walter N. Meloon, James Ippoliti, Tiffany Ann Jones, and Scott
D. Widerman, of Widerman Malek, P.L., Melbourne, for
Petitioners.

Allan P. Whitehead and Erika McBryde, of Frese, Whitehead,
Anderson, & Henderson, P.A., Melbourne, for Respondents.
                         October 13, 2023

LAMBERT, J.

     Gary J. Ganiban, M.D.; Michael N. Mandese, M.D.; Jason K.
Darlington, M.D.; Eric Straut, O.D.; and Hetal Vaishnav, M.D.
(“Petitioners”), who are the defendants below, challenge three
separate orders entered by the trial court. One order denied their
motion to dissolve an order that had extended the parties’ “status
quo.” A second order granted the respondents’ motion for
protective order to preserve the status quo while their renewed
motion for a temporary injunction was pending and to prevent
Petitioners from locking out respondent James N. McManus, M.D.,
from his medical practice and from terminating or not renewing
his employment contract in the interim. The third order found
Petitioners in contempt of court for violating a court order. For the
following reasons, we dismiss the petition.

     The individual parties in this case are doctors in an optometry
practice who have various percentage ownership interests in the
three corporate respondents, Southwoods Investment, LLC; 1995
NASA Group, LLC; and Florida Eye Consultants, Inc. Because
Petitioners were allegedly attempting to improperly dissolve and
otherwise wind down these entities, the respondents filed suit to
enjoin the dissolution and for damages resulting from Petitioners’
alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties owed to the respondents.

    The respondents moved for the issuance of a temporary
injunction to prevent the dissolution of the corporate respondents.
The motion was set for an evidentiary hearing; but, prior to the
hearing, the parties agreed to the entry of a court order that
required the parties to maintain the “status quo” of the dispute
regarding their corporate entities for a period of 100 days until
they either reached a “resolution” or the motion for temporary
injunction was heard by the court.

     A resolution was not reached, and the respondents filed a
renewed motion for a temporary injunction. On September 16,
2022, upon motion, the trial court entered an order extending the
aforementioned “status quo” for an additional 180 days or until a
hearing was held and a ruling was entered on the renewed motion

                                 2
for temporary injunction, whichever first occurred. Petitioners
moved to dissolve this order, which the trial court denied. This
denial order is one of the orders before us for review.

     The trial court also separately granted the respondents’
motion for protective order to preserve the status quo and preclude
Petitioners from terminating or not renewing respondent
McManus’s employment agreement and from impacting
McManus’s continuing ability to see his patients and operate his
practice. Petitioners seek relief here from this status quo
protective order.

     Two salient events have occurred since the entry of these
orders. First, the 180-day extension period in the status quo order
has expired.      Second, the trial court has now denied the
respondents’ renewed motion for temporary injunction 1 thus
substantively negating the continued viability of the status quo
protective order. Based on these two events, we find that the
petition for certiorari is now moot as to both the protective order
and the order denying Petitioners’ motion to dissolve the separate
“status quo” order. Cf. Wellings Auto., LLC v. Dennis Saviano Tr.,
dated 5/18/1993, 183 So. 3d 412, 412 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
(dismissing an appeal as moot because the temporary injunction
expired by its own terms after thirty days had passed); Georgiades
v. Georgiades, 186 So. 2d 810, 810 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966) (dismissing
as moot a petition for writ of certiorari to review an order denying
a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction because the trial court
had subsequently entered an order dissolving the injunction).

     Turning to the civil contempt order now before us, as the order
is not one of the enumerated nonfinal orders reviewable under
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, any relief for
Petitioners from this contempt order would be by certiorari. See

    1
      The parties are presently before this court in Case No. 5D23-
1921 regarding the denial of this renewed motion for temporary
injunction. A district court of appeal can take judicial notice of its
own records. Scheffer v. State, 893 So. 2d 698, 699 (Fla. 5th DCA
2005); Lightner v. State, 306 So. 3d 1019, 1020 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA
2020).

                                  3
Menke v. Wendell, 188 So. 3d 869, 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
(recognizing that “a prejudgment civil contempt order entered in
an ongoing proceeding is subject to certiorari review”).

     However, the petition for writ of certiorari was not filed within
thirty days of the rendition of the order, as required under Florida
Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(c)(1). While Petitioners did file
a motion for reconsideration of the contempt order, such a motion
directed to an interlocutory order does not toll the time for the
filing of a petition for certiorari. Shelnutt v. Citrus Cnty., 660 So.
2d 393, 394 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (citing Coldwell Banker Com. v.
Wightman, 649 So. 2d 346, 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)).

     We therefore dismiss this untimely petition for lack of
jurisdiction. See Caldwell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 980 So. 2d
1226, 1228–29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“As with an untimely notice of
appeal, an untimely petition for writ of certiorari is ineffective to
confer jurisdiction on the appellate court . . . [and] the petition for
writ of certiorari must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”).

    DISMISSED.

MAKAR and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

                  _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

                                  4