Opinion
No. 1D21-2463
03-09-2022
EMED URGENT AND PRIMARY CARE, P.A. d/b/a Emed Multispecialty Group, P.A., Rene U. Pulido, M.D., Juan D. Pulido, M.D., and Jessica Gomez, ARNP, Petitioners, v. Barbara RIVAS, Surviving Spouse, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jose Rivas, Deceased, David Smith Owens, M.D., Radiology Consultation Services, P.C., National Radiology Solutions Group, PLLC, National Radiology Solutions, LLC, Elite Imaging, LLC and Akumin Corp., Respondents.
Clemente J. Inclan and Jennifer L. Reiber of Saalfield Shad, P.A., Jacksonville, for Petitioners. Gregory S. d'Incelli and Philip Freidin of Freidin Brown, P.A., Miami; and Kimberly L. Boldt and Ryan C. Tyler of Ratzan, Weissman & Boldt, Boca Raton, for Respondents Barbara Rivas and the Estate of Jose Rivas. Jeptha Barbour and Michael Manning of Marks Gray, P.A., Jacksonville, for Respondents National Radiology Solutions, Group, PLLC, Akumin Corp., Akumin, Elite Imaging, LLC d/b/a Akumin and Elite Imaging Arlington. Jason B. Vrbensky and Benjamin L. Bedard of Roberts, Reynolds, Bedard & Tuzzio, PLLC, West Palm Beach, for Respondent David Owens.
Clemente J. Inclan and Jennifer L. Reiber of Saalfield Shad, P.A., Jacksonville, for Petitioners.
Gregory S. d'Incelli and Philip Freidin of Freidin Brown, P.A., Miami; and Kimberly L. Boldt and Ryan C. Tyler of Ratzan, Weissman & Boldt, Boca Raton, for Respondents Barbara Rivas and the Estate of Jose Rivas.
Jeptha Barbour and Michael Manning of Marks Gray, P.A., Jacksonville, for Respondents National Radiology Solutions, Group, PLLC, Akumin Corp., Akumin, Elite Imaging, LLC d/b/a Akumin and Elite Imaging Arlington.
Jason B. Vrbensky and Benjamin L. Bedard of Roberts, Reynolds, Bedard & Tuzzio, PLLC, West Palm Beach, for Respondent David Owens.
Per Curiam.
To obtain relief by certiorari, "[t]he petitioning party must demonstrate that the contested order constitutes ‘(1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal.’ " Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC , 99 So. 3d 450, 454 (Fla. 2012) (quoting Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Florida, Inc. , 889 So. 2d 812, 822 (Fla. 2004) ). "These last two elements are sometimes referred to as irreparable harm." Damsky v. Univ. of Miami , 152 So. 3d 789, 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). "The ‘irreparable harm’ prong of the certiorari standard—i.e., material injury that cannot be remedied on appeal—is jurisdictional and must be considered first." CVS Caremark Corp. v. Latour , 109 So. 3d 1232, 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
Petitioners have failed to establish that they will suffer irreparable harm if the order under review stands. Petitioners offer only unsupported speculation of future harm, which is not sufficient to establish material injury. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P. v. Endicott , 81 So. 3d 486, 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) ("Generally speaking, irreparable harm cannot be speculative, but must be real and ascertainable."); Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Tr. Fund , 99 So. 3d at 455 ("If the party seeking review does not demonstrate that it will suffer material injury of an irreparable nature, then an appellate court may not grant certiorari relief from a non-appealable non-final order."). We therefore dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED .
Makar, Winokur, and Long, JJ., concur.