Rosen v. Solomon

Florida District Courts of Appeal
Rosen v. Solomon, 586 So. 2d 1348 (1991)
1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 13886; 1991 WL 205841
Barkdull, Nesbitt, Schwartz

Rosen v. Solomon

Opinion of the Court

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

There is no doubt that the orders below appointing a “commissioner” — actually a master in flimsy semantic disguise — to resolve discovery disputes cannot be enforced in the face of the specific pre-hearing objections filed by the defendants-petitioners. Bathurst v. Turner, 533 So.2d 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); accord Wilson v. McKay, 568 So.2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (agreement to previous order of reference does not waive objection to subsequent order); Kuper v. Kuper, 564 So.2d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Slattery v. Slattery, 528 So.2d 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Accordingly, mandamus is granted requiring the trial court itself to hear and determine those matters. Bathurst, 533 So.2d at 939. The petitions are otherwise denied. The stays previously entered are vacated instanter.

Reference

Full Case Name
Arnold ROSEN and Bonnie Rosen v. The Honorable Harold SOLOMON, etc.
Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published