Digitalbridge Partners, III, LP and DBP III Snowbird Bidco, LLC v. Cariaco Technologies, Inc. and Cariaco Consulting, Inc.

OCR transcription; preserved printed pages are authoritative

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT

DIGITALBRIDGE PARTNERS, III, LP, and
DBP III SNOWBIRD BIDCO, LLC,
Petitioners,

Vv.

CARIACO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Florida corporation, and
CARIACO CONSULTING, INC., a Florida corporation,
Respondents.

No. 4D2025-2434
[March 11, 2026]

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Bradley G. Harper, Judge; L.T. Case
No. 50-2024-CA-011356-XXXA-MB.

Beverly A. Pohl of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Boca Raton,
and Kimberly J. Freedman and Mark F. Raymond of Nelson Mullins Riley
& Scarborough LLP, Miami, for petitioners.

Alan B. Rose and Carly M. Weiss of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, West
Palm Beach, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Digitalbridge Partners, III, LP, and DPB III Snowbird Bidco, LLC, seek
certiorari review of a nonfinal order denying their motion to stay
proceedings in the Palm Beach County action pending resolution of a
related, first-filed action in Miami-Dade County. We grant the petition and
quash the order.

Certiorari relief is appropriate where a trial court departs from the
essential requirements of law and causes irreparable harm that cannot be
remedied on plenary appeal. InPhyNet Contracting Servs., Inc. v. Matthews,
196 So. 3d 449, 462-63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). The risk of an inconsistent
ruling on the same dispositive issue by another court constitutes
irreparable harm. Id. at 463.

Both actions arise from the same Software Development Agreement and
the same threshold question: whether that agreement conferred a 5%
ownership or equity interest in HControl Corporation upon Rafael Marquez
or his entities, respondents in this action. That issue underlies all claims
asserted in this Palm Beach County action and has already been
adjudicated by the Miami-Dade court in resolving declaratory relief claims
arising from the same agreement. Allowing the Palm Beach County action
to proceed simultaneously creates a substantial risk of inconsistent
rulings on the same contract interpretation issue.

We find the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law
by failing to apply the principle of priority. When substantially similar
actions are pending in different courts, the later-filed action should be
stayed absent special circumstances. Toth v. Toth, 359 So. 3d 352, 354
(Fla. 4th DCA 2023). Identity of parties or causes of action is not required
for a stay; substantial similarity of the issues is sufficient. Spacebox
Dover, LLC v. LSREF2 Baron LLC, 112 So. 3d 751, 752 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).
Here, no special or extraordinary circumstances justified denial of a stay.

Accordingly, we grant the petition, quash the order denying the stay,
and remand with instructions to stay the Palm Beach County proceedings
pending further disposition of the related Miami-Dade County action or
the associated appeals currently pending in this court. This disposition is
procedural only and does not address the merits of any party’s claims.

Petition granted; order quashed; and remanded with instructions.

May, CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.