Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed June 23, 2021.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-355
Lower Tribunal No. 19-3418
________________
Kratos Holdings, LLC, a/k/a VIP Leasing,
Petitioner,
vs.
Direct Investments International, LLC, et al.,
Respondents.
A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mavel
Ruiz, Judge.
Brodsky Fotiu-Wojtowicz, PLLC, and Benjamin H. Brodsky, for
petitioner.
Brady Law Firm, P.A., and William Brady, Jr., for respondents.
Before HENDON, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.
HENDON, J.
The defendant below, Kratos Holdings, LLC, a/k/a VIP Leasing
(“Petitioner” or “Defendant”), petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari,
seeking to quash the trial court’s partial summary judgment entered in favor
of the plaintiffs below, Direct Investments International, LLC, and Corenet
Holdings, Ltd. (collectively, “Respondents” or “Plaintiffs”), allowing
immediate execution of the monetary award. For the reasons that follow
we grant the petition and quash the portion of the partial summary
judgment authorizing immediate execution.
The Respondents filed suit against the Petitioner, seeking to enforce
a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement required the Petitioner
to make installment payments on certain dates to the Respondents’
counsel’s trust account, to either immediately deliver proceeds from the
sale of specifically listed luxury vehicles to the Respondents’ counsel’s trust
account, and to deliver assignment of motor vehicle lienholder documents
for other specifically listed luxury vehicles to Corenet Holdings. Count I of
the amended complaint relates to the Petitioner’s alleged failure to make
the certain installment payments due under the settlement agreement, and
Counts II through VII relate to the Petitioner’s alleged failure to comply with
the settlement agreement regarding specifically listed luxury vehicles—
either paying sums to the Respondents’ counsel upon the sale of
specifically listed luxury vehicles and to deliver assignment of motor vehicle
2
lienholder documents for other specifically listed luxury vehicles. All counts
stem from the Respondents’ attempt to enforce the settlement agreement.
The Respondents filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to
Count I of the amended complaint relating to the Petitioner’s failure to remit
the installment payments. The trial court granted the Respondents’ motion
for partial summary judgment and entered an “Executable Money
Judgment” in favor of the Respondents in the amount of $288,239.99, plus
an additional $44,475.43 in pre-judgment interest, “for which let execution
issue forthwith and without delay.” In paragraph 17 of the Executable
Money Judgment, the trial court stated:
Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(d) and given
that the Plaintiff[s’] Amended Complaint has asserted additional
affirmative claims seeking non-monetary damages, the Court
holds that this case is not fully adjudicated upon the Plaintiffs’
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and shall retain
jurisdiction over this cause for determination of these affirmative
and un-adjudicated claims, along with any defenses which the
Defendant may lodge against the same, by the Court or the trier
of fact consistent herewith.
The Court directs the Clerk of Court to maintain this case in an
active and open status pursuant to the directives contained in
the above referenced paragraph.
(emphasis in original). 1
1
Contrary to the trial court’s finding in paragraph 17, in the remaining
counts (Counts II through VII), the Respondents sought either a specific
amount of monetary damages or “compensatory damages” arising from the
breach of the settlement agreement.
3
Following the entry of the Executable Money Judgment, the Petitioner
filed a notice of appeal. Thereafter, this Court ordered the Petitioner, in
light of paragraph 17, to show cause why the appeal should not be
dismissed as taken from a non-final, non-appealable order granting partial
summary judgment. In response to the show cause order, rather than
pursuing its appeal, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari,
seeking to quash the Executable Money Judgment.
To obtain certiorari relief, the petitioner must establish “(1) a material
injury in the proceedings that cannot be corrected on appeal (sometimes
referred to as irreparable harm); and (2) a departure from the essential
requirements of the law.” People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, 46 Fla. L.
Weekly D287 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 3, 2021). The requirement of establishing
irreparable harm is jurisdictional. See Am. Franchise Grp. LLC v. Gastone,
46 Fla. L. Weekly D779 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 7, 2021).
In People’s Trust, the trial court granted partial summary judgment in
favor of Gonzalez and ordered People’s Trust to pay Gonzalez monetary
damages within ten days of the date of the order. The order, however, left
other factually related claims unresolved. This Court treated People’s
Trust’s notice of appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, and granted the
petition for writ of certiorari and quashed the portion of the order requiring
4
payment prior to the entry of a final judgment. In granting People’s Trust’s
petition, this Court stated:
Courts have consistently found that an order resolving only part
of a civil lawsuit by requiring a party to make an interim
payment while leaving intertwined factual matters unresolved
presents the type of irreparable harm and departure from the
essential requirements of the law remediable by issuance of a
writ of certiorari. See, e.g., Team Richco, LLC v. Rapid Sec.
Sols., LLC,
290 So. 3d 629, 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (issuing
writ and quashing partial judgment that results in “irreparable
injury where it authorizes execution prior to entry of a final,
appealable order”); East Ave., LLC v. Insignia Bank,
136 So. 3d
659, 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (same).
People’s Tr., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D287.
In the instant case, although each count in the operative complaint
relates to the Petitioner’s alleged failure to perform its obligations as set
forth in the settlement agreement, all counts stem from the Respondents’
attempt to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement. Thus, we concluded
that the partial summary judgment left intertwined factual matters
unresolved. As such, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash
the portion of the partial summary judgment authorizing immediate
execution.
Petition granted; portion of the partial summary judgment authorizing
immediate execution quashed.
5
