NATALIIA SOLOID, YURUI SOLOID, ARSENII SOLOID, and ILARIA SOLOID v. TEDD KING and BRENDAN KING

S IXTH D ISTRICT C OURT OF APPEAL
S TATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2025-2776
Lower Tribunal No. 2024-CA-000696
_____________________________
N ATALIA S OLOID, Y URUI S OLOID, ARSENI S OLOID, and I LARIA S OLOID,
Petitioners,
v.
TEDD KING and BRENDAN KING,
Respondents.
_____________________________
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Collier County.
James F. Stewart, Judge.
March 20, 2026
PER CURIAM.
DISMISSED. See, e.g., State v. Garcia, 350 So. 3d 322, 326 (Fla. 2022) (“In
the absence of irreparable harm incapable of remedy on postjudgment appeal, the
district court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari.”); CPPB, LLC v. Taurus
Apopka City Ctr., LLC, 375 So. 3d 327, 329 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (“As has been
written many times over, the common law writ of certiorari is an extraordinary
remedy and is intended to be available only in limited circumstances. . . . Appellate
courts may grant a petition for certiorari only when the petitioner establishes (1) a

2
departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury
for the remainder of the case (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal.”
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Regala v. McDonald, 374 So. 3d
855, 858 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (“Because the second and third elements, which are
jointly referenced as ‘irreparable harm,’ are jurisdictional, they must be established
before the first element, i.e., the merits, may be addressed.” (citations omitted));
Boyd v. Pheo, Inc., 664 So. 2d 294, 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“[O]rders having the
effect of denying discovery are almost invariably not reviewable by certiorari
because of the absence of irreparable harm.”); see generally Adkins v. Sotolongo,
227 So. 3d 717, 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (Luck, J., concurring) (“The reason most
often given for allowing review of an order denying discovery is that the appellate
court would not know what the information was that was excluded and, as a
consequence, the court would not know how the information might have affected
the outcome of the case. This argument has some practical appeal but it also has two
weaknesses. First, it is an argument that could be made about any order denying
discovery. The danger in applying the rationale of the argument too freely is that it
might convert an extraordinary remedy into a routine step in the process. Second,
the argument fails to take full account of the remedies that are available on direct
appeal. In many cases it may be an adequate remedy to reverse the judgment for a

3
new trial to be conducted with the benefit of the discovery previously denied.”
(quoting Philip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice § 30:5 (2016 ed.))).
STARGEL, WHITE and PRATT, JJ., concur.
Raymond Christopher, of Ave Maria Law Center, Ave Maria, for Petitioners.
Nicholas R. Consalvo and Kevin D. Franz, of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., Boca Raton,
for Respondents.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED