Wednesday, October 21, 2009

"An Attorney Who Seeks 'Emergency' Review Immediately Loses Credibility If This Court Discovers There Is No True Emergency"

In USAA Casualty Insurance Company v. Pembroke Pines MRI, Inc. (4D09-3832), the Fourth District denied a petition for certiorari relating to bad faith discovery and also gave some guidance about "emergency" petitions:
The court system is overloaded. See In re Certification of Need for Additional Judges, 3 So. 3d 1177 (Fla. 2009). As a result of budget cuts in recent years, the courts have lost staff, which has increased the workload of judges and remaining personnel and slowed the disposition of pending cases. Meanwhile, civil and criminal filings have increased.
To safeguard the rights of litigants and assure meaningful review in time sensitive cases, certain types of cases, such as the termination of parental rights and the denial of pretrial bond, are reviewed on an expedited basis. To help identify other cases that need prompt review, this court requires litigants who seek emergency review to include a certificate certifying the existence and nature of the emergency. In Re: Emergency Filings, Fla. Admin. Order No. 4D02-08 (Feb. 11, 2008).
Pleadings filed as emergencies disrupt court procedures and interrupt work on cases that were already pending. Consequently, an attorney who seeks “emergency” review immediately loses credibility if this court discovers there is no true emergency.


Post a Comment