SCRAP INC RECYCLING INC OF PENSACOLA INC v. RICHARD ADAMS EULAINE ADAMS MALINDA ANDERSON MARY MATTHEWS HENRY ATKINS JACQUELINE ATKINS LUCY MAE BELL BETTY BROWN CLAYTON BROWN JR CLAYTON BROWN III OSSIE BRUNDRIDGE CAROL BRUNDRIDGE MARY CASEY WILLIE DAVISON EMMA DAVISON GIAVANIE PEARSON MCBETHER HILL AUDREY HOGAN LILLIE MAE JOHNSON DEBORAH LEGRANT EVELYN LOVETTE CLINTON MADISON GERTRUDE ADAMS EULA MADISON MARY MCCANN JOSEPH MILLER LUCILLE MILLER CLARENCE SAMPSON RONNIE SAMPSON FLOYD PEACOCK JOHNNIE PEACOCK ALCONRIC PEAVY VERONICA POSEY MARY LOUISE POSTELL STEPHEN RUSSO ANNETTE SMITH VERNA STEPHEN RONALD STEWART ANNA STEWART HUBERT THOMPSON CAROL THOMPSON SYLVESTER WASHINGTON VERNON WASHINGTON EASTER WELCH MAGGIE WHITE FRANKLIN WILLIS WINDER MAURICE WILLIS ANTANGILA WILLIS BRANDON BARGE (2017)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

SCRAP, INC., G.S.I. RECYCLING, INC., and D&S OF PENSACOLA, INC., Petitioners, v. RICHARD ADAMS, EULAINE ADAMS, MALINDA ANDERSON, MARY MATTHEWS, HENRY ATKINS, JACQUELINE ATKINS, LUCY MAE BELL, BETTY BROWN, CLAYTON BROWN, JR., CLAYTON BROWN, III, OSSIE BRUNDRIDGE, CAROL BRUNDRIDGE, MARY CASEY, WILLIE DAVISON, EMMA DAVISON, GIAVANIE PEARSON, MCBETHER HILL, AUDREY HOGAN, LILLIE MAE JOHNSON, DEBORAH LEGRANT, EVELYN LOVETTE, CLINTON MADISON, GERTRUDE ADAMS, EULA MADISON, MARY MCCANN, JOSEPH MILLER, LUCILLE MILLER, CLARENCE SAMPSON, RONNIE SAMPSON, FLOYD PEACOCK, JOHNNIE PEACOCK, ALCONRIC PEAVY, VERONICA POSEY, MARY LOUISE POSTELL, STEPHEN RUSSO, ANNETTE SMITH, VERNA STEPHEN, RONALD STEWART, ANNA STEWART, HUBERT THOMPSON, CAROL THOMPSON, SYLVESTER WASHINGTON, VERNON WASHINGTON, EASTER WELCH, MAGGIE WHITE, FRANKLIN WILLIS, WINDER MAURICE WILLIS, ANTANGILA WILLIS, and BRANDON BARGE, Respondents.

CASE NO. 1D16-5757

Decided: May 09, 2017

W. David Jester and Jessica L. Scholl of Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith, PLC, Pensacola, and Robert O. Beasley of Litvak, Beasley, & Wilson, LLP, Pensacola, for Petitioners. No appearances for Respondents.

Petitioners seek certiorari review of an order consolidating multiple cases for trial. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that they will be irreparably harmed by the order of consolidation as the order is subject to review on direct appeal. See Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., Inc., 48 So. 3d 976, 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), disapproved on other grounds by Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., 177 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 2015). Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied.

PER CURIAM.

ROBERTS, C. J., LEWIS and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network