Opinion
No. 4D11–1580.
2011-08-17
TBE GROUP, INC., d/b/a Tampa Bay Engineering, Petitioner, v. Tapan BANERJEE, The Demoya Group, Inc., Adair & Braidy, Inc., State of Florida Department of Transportation, Protection Services, Inc., United Rentals Highway Technologies, Inc., Steven D. Brown, and Ann Stockton Deaunovich, Respondents.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Meenu T. Sasser, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502006CA013955XXXXMB.Donald F. Wright, Edward M. Baird, Ryan C. Phillips, and Sarah D. Rodriguez of Wright, Fulford, Moorhead & Brown, P.A., Altamonte Springs, for petitioner. No response required for respondents.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Meenu T. Sasser, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502006CA013955XXXXMB.Donald F. Wright, Edward M. Baird, Ryan C. Phillips, and Sarah D. Rodriguez of Wright, Fulford, Moorhead & Brown, P.A., Altamonte Springs, for petitioner. No response required for respondents.
PER CURIAM.
We have previously dismissed petitions for writ of certiorari challenging nonfinal orders that denied claims of sovereign immunity, pursuant to section 768.28, Florida Statutes. See Dep't of Educ. v. Roe, 679 So.2d 756 (Fla.1996); Brown v. McKinnon, 964 So.2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007), rev. denied, 980 So.2d 488 (Fla.2008). Accordingly, the instant petition likewise is hereby dismissed.
However, we note that the supreme court has accepted jurisdiction of Keck v. Eminisor, 46 So.3d 1065 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. granted, 54 So.3d 973 (Fla.2010), in which the First District certified the following as a question of great public importance:
Whether review of the denial of a motion for summary judgment, based on a claim of individual immunity under section 768.28(9)(a) without implicating the discretionary functions of public officials, should await the entry of a final judgment in the trial court? Id. at 1068.
This case involves the denial of a motion for summary judgment based on a corporation's claim of immunity as an agent of the State Department of Transportation, under section 768.28(9)(a) and (10)(e). Accordingly, we certify the following question:
Whether review of the denial of a motion for summary judgment, based on a claim of immunity as an agent of the state under section 768.28(9)(a) & 10(e), without implicating the discretionary functions of public officials, should await the entry of a final judgment in the trial court?
Dismissed; question certified.