Alternative Global One, LLC, et al. v. David Feingold and Michael Dazzo

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed January 14, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-0904
Lower Tribunal No. 23-688-CA-01
Alternative Global One, LLC, et al.,
Petitioners,
vs.
David Feingold and Michael Dazzo,
Respondents.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Thomas J. Rebull, Judge.
Greenberg Traurig, P.A., and Glenn E. Goldstein, Avi Benayoun, John
L. McManus, Zachary R. Needell (Fort Lauderdale), Brigid F. Cech Samole,
and Bethany J.M. Pandher, for petitioners.
Barakat + Bossa, PLLC, and Brian Barakat and Jocelyne A. Macelloni
and Matthew Akiba; Berkeley Law, P.A., and Lorne E. Berkeley (Cooper
City); 	Clarke 	Silverglate, 	P.A., 	and 	Stephanie 	M. 	Simm, 	Spencer 	H.
Silverglate, Ana Sarmento and Raul Alvarez, for respondents.
Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and GOODEN, JJ.

2
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners Alternative Global One, LLC, Alternative Global Two, LLC,
Alternative Global Three, LLC, Alternative Global Four, LLC, Alternative
Global Five, LLC, and Alternative Global Six, LLC, seek a writ of certiorari
quashing 	two 	orders 	granting 	Appellees’ 	David 	Feingold 	and 	Michael
Dazzo’s renewed motion to stay proceedings pending disposition of an
earlier-filed 	action 	pending 	in 	the 	United 	States 	District 	Court 	for 	the
Southern District of Florida.1
To obtain a writ of certiorari, a party must demonstrate a departure
from the essential requirements of the law that results in material injury that
cannot be corrected on plenary appeal. Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla.,
Inc., 889 So. 2d 812, 822 (Fla. 2004); Kilgore v. Bird, 6 So. 2d 541, 545 (Fla.
1942). 	“Unless the petitioner establishes irreparable harm, the court must
dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.” 	Damsky v. Univ. of Miami, 152
So. 3d 789, 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). It is a condition precedent for this Court
to provide relief. Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc., 720 So. 2d 214, 215 (Fla. 1998).
1 Feingold and Dazzo previously filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking
to quash the order denying their earlier stay motion. This Court denied that
petition in an unelaborated order. See 3D2023-1020. Since then, the earlier-
filed federal action was consolidated with two other federal actions. 	Based
on that consolidation, Feingold and Dazzo renewed their motion to stay, and
the trial court granted the motion.

3
Because we find that the Petitioners failed to establish irreparable
harm, we hereby dismiss the petition. 	See Baute v. Crenshaw, 405 So. 3d
388, 390 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (“Not every stay causes a party irreparable
harm.”); Flaig ex rel. Palmcrest Homes of Tampa Bay, LLC v. Sullivan, 141
So. 3d 1274, 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (“The order staying the proceedings
properly provides that the . . . suit may go forward if the issues raised therein
are not decided in other litigation. Any resulting delay or inconvenience to
the parties would not suffice as the irreparable harm that would permit us to
issue a writ of certiorari.”); Perry v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 379 So. 2d 429,
430 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (“[A] stay simply postpones the action until the
happening of some contingency.”).
Petition dismissed.