Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

April 15, 2016 by admin

Civil procedure — Discovery — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in ordering petitioner to reveal information regarding her cell phone

41 Fla. L. Weekly D926a

Top of Form

Civil
procedure — Discovery — Trial court departed from essential requirements of
law in ordering petitioner to reveal information regarding her cell phone —
Order violates petitioner’s Fifth Amendment rights while her criminal case is
pending

VIVIAN RESTREPO, Petitioner, vs. SEIDY CARRERA, Respondent.
3rd District. Case No. 3D15-1964. L.T. Case No. 14-23417. Opinion filed April
13, 2016. A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County,
Antonio Marin, Judge. Counsel: Bernstein, Chackman, Liss, and Neil Rose
(Hollywood), for petitioner. Ellsley Sobol, P.L., and Eric M. Ellsley
(Plantation), for respondent.

(Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and SCALES, JJ.)

ON
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

[Original Opinion at 41 Fla. L. Weekly D240b]

(FERNANDEZ, Judge.) We grant respondent’s Motion for
Clarification, withdraw this Court’s previous opinion issued on January 20,
2016, and substitute the following opinion in its place:

Vivian Restrepo petitions this Court to review the trial
court’s order directing petitioner to “provide cell phone numbers and/or names
of providers used during the six (6) hour period before the time of the crash
and the six (6) hour period after the crash, same to be provided within thirty
(30) days from the date of this Order.” Upon review of the petition and based
on respondent’s concession of error that the trial court’s order directing
petitioner to reveal information regarding her cell phone violates petitioner’s
Fifth Amendment rights, while her criminal case is pending, and constitutes a
departure from the essential requirements of law from which petitioner has no
adequate remedy on appeal, we grant the petition and quash the order requiring
petitioner to provide information regarding her cell phone number and her cell
phone carrier. We express no opinion on the status of the petitioner’s Fifth
Amendment rights once her criminal case has concluded.

Petition granted; order quashed.

* *
*

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Appeal from order awarding attorney’s fees and costs and attorney’s fees for fees incurred in litigating amount of fees reversed in light of appellate court’s reversal of substantive portion of summary judgment on which awards were based and remand with instructions — Reversal is without prejudice to filing new appeal after trial court has concluded its labor
  • Insurance — Property — Insured’s action against insurer — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of insurer where there were factual issues as to insured’s compliance with post-loss obligations and any ensuing prejudice — Remand for further proceedings
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Assignee’s breach of contract action against insurer — Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Insurer was not entitled to summary judgment in its favor after paying post-lawsuit appraisal award within time limit required by the policy where appraisal process confirmed that insurer had wrongly denied paying assignee a specified amount of benefits under the policy — Payment of postsuit appraisal award did not render case moot — Remand for further proceedings on assignee’s claim for attorney’s fees and costs
  • Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Failure to state on the record the reasons for granting motion for summary judgment, as required by amended rule — Remand to allow court an opportunity to state reasons for its decision “with enough specificity to provide useful guidance to the parties and, if necessary, to allow for appellate review”
  • Insurance — Personal injury protection — Presuit demand letter — Presuit demand letter did not comply with statute where amount claimed to be due was not sufficiently precise — Although letter asked insurer to advise plaintiff if demand letter was defective in any way, nothing in language of section 627.736 requires an insurer to give notice to the insured or an assignee that a demand letter is defective

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. Abbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982