Thinking Systems Corporation v. Jingbai Wang, Thinking System Sales and Service, Llc., and Xiaoyi Wang
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledNovember 2, 2022
Docket2D22-0606
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
THINKING SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
JINGBAI WANG; THINKING SYSTEMS SALES AND SERVICE, LLC;
and XIAOYI WANG,
Respondents.
No. 2D22-606
November 2, 2022
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Pinellas
County; Amy Williams, Judge.
Joseph P. Kenny of Weber, Crabb & Wein, P.A., St. Petersburg, for
Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent Jingbai Wang.
Robert E. Burguieres of Robert E. Burguieres, P.A., St. Petersburg,
for Respondents Thinking Systems Sales and Service, LLC and
Xiaoyi Wang.
BLACK, Judge.
Thinking Systems Corporation (TSC) seeks certiorari review of
the trial court's order compelling TSC to produce corporate
documents to Jingbai Wang. Because the documents requested
amount to an accounting to which Mr. Wang has not been
determined to be entitled, we grant the petition and quash the trial
court's order.
TSC's lawsuit against Mr. Wang included claims for
declaratory relief, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion. As
relevant here, Mr. Wang filed counterclaims against TSC, including
a claim for an accounting. Following the entry of partial summary
judgment in favor of Mr. Wang, where the court found only that "no
reasonable jury could find that [Mr. Wang] was not an owner of
shares in TSC or an equitable shareholder in this business," Mr.
Wang sought discovery of corporate documents. TSC denied Mr.
Wang's discovery request, relying in part on Mr. Wang's failure to
comply with section 607.1602(3), Florida Statutes (2021). Mr.
Wang then filed a motion to compel, which was granted. The order
on review states only that Mr. Wang's motion to compel is granted
2
and that "those items required under FS 607 shall be produced
within 15 days."
TSC correctly asserts in its petition that these types of
discovery concerns are generally addressed via certiorari. See
Collier Anesthesia, P.A. v. Worden, 726 So. 2d 342, 343 (Fla. 2d
DCA 1999); D. Stephenson Constr., Inc. v. Mendiguren, 958 So. 2d
527, 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). TSC argues that the trial court
departed from the essential requirements of the law when it granted
the motion to compel because the documents sought by Mr. Wang
are not those available to all shareholders as a matter of course
under section 607.1602(1) and Mr. Wang has not established
entitlement to the documents pursuant to section 607.1602(3).
We agree with TSC that the records and documents sought are
not those listed in section 607.1602(1) and that in order to be
entitled to review the requested documents—documents amounting
to an accounting—Mr. Wang must first have established a right to
an accounting and compliance with section 607.1602(3). See
Collier Anesthesia, 726 So. 2d at 343 ("Items possibly relevant to an
accounting are not discoverable until the right to an accounting has
3
first been established."). Mr. Wang's counterclaim seeking an
accounting remained pending at the time the trial court granted the
motion to compel. He was therefore not entitled to the information
sought when the court entered the order, and the court departed
from the essential requirements of the law by finding otherwise.
See id. at 344. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of
certiorari and quash the trial court's order granting Mr. Wang's
motion to compel.
Petition granted; order quashed.
NORTHCUTT and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
4