Karen L. Larson v. Fc Oyster Harbor, LLC and Gbh Oyster Harbor Dev., LLC
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledApril 8, 2022
Docket2D21-2639
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
KAREN L. LARSON,
Petitioner,
v.
FC OYSTER HARBOR, LLC, and
GBH OYSTER HARBOR DEV., LLC,
Respondents.
No. 2D21-2639
April 8, 2022
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Collier County;
Lauren L. Brodie, Judge.
David P. Fraser of Holmes Fraser, P.A., Naples, for Petitioner.
Ricardo A Reyes and Carrie S. Robinson of Tobin & Reyes, P.A.,
Boca Raton, for Respondents.
PER CURIAM.
Dismissed. See Senior Care Grp., Inc. v. Est. of Fischer ex rel.
Woodworth, 12 So. 3d 766, 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (dismissing a
petition for writ of certiorari as premature where a party was merely
compelled "to produce certain documents to the trial court for an in
camera inspection"); Gross v. Am. Federated Title Corp., 314 So. 3d
575, 576-77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (recognizing that certiorari review
of "an order requiring allegedly privileged documents to be
assembled and submitted for an in camera inspection . . . is
premature because no irreparable harm can be demonstrated until
the court enters a subsequent order actually requiring the
production of the privileged documents" (citing Cooper Tire &
Rubber Co. v. Rodriguez, 2 So. 3d 1027, 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)));
Cape Canaveral Hosp., Inc. v. Leal, 917 So. 2d 336, 340 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2005) (determining that a petition for a writ of certiorari was
premature because no irreparable harm had been demonstrated
when a party was "merely require[d] . . . to produce the requested
documents for an in camera inspection by the trial court").
NORTHCUTT, SILBERMAN, and STARGEL, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
2