Full Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 12, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ Nos. 3D26-1461 & 3D26-1462 Lower Tribunal Nos. 24-12280-CA-01 & 26-532-CA-01 ________________ Urbana at the Residences Condominium No. 3 Association, Inc., Petitioner, vs. White Course Lennar, LLC, Lennar Homes, LLC, Raisa Krause, Carmen Orozco, Vanessa Perez, Capri Construction Corp., Crown Roofing, Horizon Windows Corp., Miami Architectural Studio, LLC, Jennifer Mallon Salman, Nodal Structures, Inc., Carlos A. Nodal, Pascual Perez & Associates, Inc., Edgardo Perez, Sunshine Windows Manufacturing, Inc., Universal World Construction, Inc., Witkin Design Group, Inc., Andrew Michael Witkins, Empire Electric Maintenance and Service, Inc., Ortega Grading, Inc., Shamrock Engineering Corp., Eric A. Shea, Southwest Plumbing Services, Inc., Dixie Landscape, LLC, South Florida Stucco & Exteriors, LLC, and Oscar Air Conditioning, Inc., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lisa S. Walsh, Judge. Ansbacher Law, and Michael Colin Feinberg, and Barry B. Ansbacher, John Samuel Pairitz, Miguel Gonzalez, and Martin Stern (Jacksonville), for petitioner Urbana at the Residences Condominium No. 3 Association, Inc. Carlton Fields, P.A., and Dara Lynn Lindquist, Charlotte Warren, and Jason Frederick Bullinger (Orlando), for respondents White Course Lennar, LLC, Lennar Homes, LLC, Raisa Krause, Carmen Orozco, and Vanessa Perez. Conroy Simberg, and Albert Eugene Blair (Hollywood), for respondent Capri Construction Corporation. Law Office of Thamir A.R. Kaddouri, Jr., P.A., and Thamir Kaddouri, Penelope Rowlett, and Elisabeth K. Eubanks (Tampa), for respondent Crown Roofing, LLC. Alexandra D. Salvador, P.A., and Alexandra D. Salvador; Kubicki Draper, P.A., and Michael F. Suarez, Paola Solano Galindez, and Jaime Alexander Garcia Montes, for respondent Horizon Windows Corporation. Daniels Rodriguez Cruz, and Riley Nicole Richards, and Jeremy Clarke Daniels, for respondents Miami Architectural Studio, LLC and Jennifer Mallon Salman. Daniels Rodriguez Cruz, and Jorge Luis Cruz, and Teresa Ann Vazquez, for respondents Carlos A. Nodal and Nodal Structures, Inc. VLP Copenhaver Espino, and Joseph William Lawrence (Fort Lauderdale), for respondents Pascual Perez & Associates, Inc., and Edgardo Perez. Law Offices of Baumann, Gant & Keely, P.A., and Gary F. Baumann, and Peri Rose Huston-Miller (Fort Lauderdale), for respondent Sunshine Windows Manufacturing, Inc. 2 Mombach, Boyle, Hardin & Simmons, P.A., and Joshua Francis Bautz, and Stephen Joseph Simmons, for respondent Universal World Construction, Inc. Wolfe Pincavage, and Anna Dorkas Torres (West Palm Beach), for respondents Witkins Design Group, Inc., and Andrew Michael Witkins. Tyson & Mendes, and Haldon Louis Greenburg (Erie, CO), Melissa Cassandra Jantaworn (Fort Lauderdale); Bartlett LLP, and Jorge Luis Cruz- Bustillo, and Denise Marie Ibarra (Fort Lauderdale), for respondent Empire Electric Maintenance and Service, Inc. Kubicki Draper, P.A., and Vinod Rajesh Nirmal Bajnath and Ashley Valido, for respondent Ortega Grading, Inc. Zinober Diana & Monteverde, P.A., and Avery A. Dial, Alexa Rose Rudnick, and Lauren Valenssa Ravelo (Fort Lauderdale), for respondents Shamrock Engineering Corporation and Eric A. Shea. Law Office of Jennifer Malamut, and Jennifer Gayle Craddock (Orlando, FL), for respondent Southwest Plumbing Services, Inc. Marshall Dennehey, and Matthew Joseph Wildner and Barbora Skopalova (Fort Lauderdale), for respondent Dixie Landscape, LLC. Kaufmann, Siegel & Maple, PL, and Haley R. Maple and Anthony Davis Schall (Palm Harbor, FL); Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Robert H. de Flesco, III, and Amanda Beth Pravder (Plantation), for respondent South Florida Stucco & Exteriors, LLC. Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., and Thomas A. Valdez (Tampa), and John P. Keller and Stephanie Parrado, for respondent Oscar Air Conditioning, Inc. Before LOGUE, LINDSEY and GOODEN, JJ. GOODEN, J. 3 This case arises from the construction of a residential condominium. White Course Lennar, LLC developed the condominium, and Lennar Homes, LLC served as the general contractor. Petitioner Urbana at the Residences Condominium No. 3 Association, Inc. filed suits against the developer, general contractor, designers, subcontractors, and suppliers, alleging construction defects. The developer moved to compel arbitration of the Association’s claims against it. The Association agreed to arbitrate, and the trial court stayed the litigation between those parties pending resolution of the arbitration. The Association filed an arbitration claim against the developer with the American Arbitration Association. The developer, in turn, invoked the subcontract agreements with the general contractor to demand arbitration against most of the subcontractors. Meanwhile, litigation proceeded against the other parties. Respondents Sunshine Windows Manufacturing, Inc. and Oscar Air Conditioning, Inc. moved to stay the entire action pending the outcome of the arbitration. They contended that allowing the litigation to continue would risk splitting causes of action, produce inconsistent verdicts, duplicate discovery, and create competing deadlines. Several other defendants joined the motions. The Association opposed the requested stay. It maintained 4 that there was no arbitration agreement between it and the subcontractors, a stay would not promote the efficient resolution of litigation, and a stay would violate its right to access of courts and due process. After hearing argument, the trial court stayed the case pending arbitration—except as to a few parties. 1 Citing Hessen v. Schimmel, 182 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015), the trial court reasoned that a temporary stay was warranted because the claims are “based on the same operative facts and are inextricably inseparable from the claims subject to arbitration.” Upon conclusion of the arbitration, the parties were to seek to return the case to active status. One order required a status conference in six months to advise the trial court as to the status of the arbitration and whether the stay should remain in place. Meanwhile, the cases were consolidated. The Association moved for reconsideration and challenged the exclusion of a few defendants. The trial court granted reconsideration and extended the stay to those parties as well. Again, the trial court ordered a status conference in six months at which the parties will advise as to the status of the arbitration and whether a stay should remain in effect. As 1 After the developer filed its third-party demand for arbitration, Witkins Design Groups, Inc. and Universal World Construction successfully opposed the arbitration demand. As a result, the developers’ claims against them must be filed in civil court. They were initially excluded from the stay. 5 before, the court directed the parties to seek return of the case to active status upon the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. The Association seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the stay orders. It characterizes the stays as indefinite in nature, thereby denying it access to the courts, among other things. The Respondents counter that the stays are temporary, and therefore, do not inflict the irreparable harm necessary for certiorari review. Although the orders do not establish a date certain for lifting the stays, they argue that the orders require the parties to report on the arbitration’s progress and whether the stays should remain in effect. They argue that the orders also contemplate the resumption of the litigation upon the arbitration’s conclusion. To obtain a writ of certiorari, a party must demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of the law that results in material injury that cannot be corrected on plenary appeal. Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812, 822 (Fla. 2004); Kilgore v. Bird, 6 So. 2d 541, 545 (Fla. 1942). “Unless the petitioner establishes irreparable harm, the court must dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.” Damsky v. Univ. of Miami, 152 So. 3d 789, 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). It is a condition precedent for this Court to provide relief. Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc., 720 So. 2d 214, 215 (Fla. 1998). 6 Because the challenged orders simply postpone the litigation pending arbitration rather than foreclose its resumption, the Association has failed to establish the irreparable harm necessary for certiorari review. We therefore dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. See Alt. Glob. One, LLC v. Feingold, 426 So. 3d 655, 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026) (dismissing petition for lack of irreparable harm where the trial court only stayed proceeding pending disposition of an earlier-filed action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida); Kazakov v. Bourlakova, 425 So. 3d 1176, 1176–77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (dismissing petition for lack of irreparable harm where the trial court’s order allowed the parties to lift the stay and try any remaining issues left after resolution of the international litigation); Baute v. Crenshaw, 405 So. 3d 388, 390 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (“Not every stay causes a party irreparable harm.”); Flaig ex rel. Palmcrest Homes of Tampa Bay, LLC v. Sullivan, 141 So. 3d 1274, 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (“The order staying the proceedings properly provides that the . . . suit may go forward if the issues raised therein are not decided in other litigation. Any resulting delay or inconvenience to the parties would not suffice as the irreparable harm that would permit us to issue a writ of certiorari.”); Cruz v. Cooperativa De Seguros Multiples De Puerto Rico, Inc., 76 So. 3d 394, 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (“At most, the [arbitration] process delays litigation to 7 promote an alternative method of resolution. Delay or inconvenience is insufficient to invoke certiorari review.”); Perry v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 379 So. 2d 429, 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (“[A] stay simply postpones the action until the happening of some contingency.”). Petition dismissed. 8