363 So.3d 1135
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2023Background
- Plaintiff Apachula Hursey sued James T. Nadell for battery arising from an October 16, 2018 altercation on Nadell’s boat in Key West.
- Nadell asserted statutory civil immunity under Florida’s Stand Your Ground statute (Fla. Stat. § 776.032) and filed a motion to dismiss on that basis (SYG Motion).
- After an evidentiary hearing on December 20, 2022, the trial court entered an interlocutory order (Jan. 27, 2023) denying Nadell’s SYG Motion, concluding he failed to prove entitlement to immunity by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Nadell petitioned this court for a writ of prohibition challenging the denial, chiefly arguing the trial court’s factual findings lacked competent, substantial evidence support.
- The appellate court (3d DCA) questioned whether prohibition is an available remedy for a civil defendant seeking review of a nonfinal SYG denial, certified that procedural question to the Florida Supreme Court, and referred a possible rule change to the Florida Bar’s Appellate Rules Committee.
- On the merits the court applied the mixed standard (factual findings: competent, substantial evidence; legal conclusions: de novo), concluded Hursey’s testimony sufficed as competent, substantial evidence, and denied Nadell’s petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prohibition is an available remedy to challenge a nonfinal civil order denying SYG immunity | Prohibition is not appropriate; interlocutory appeals or other remedies govern and prohibition is narrowly available | Prohibition is appropriate to prevent continued litigation when immunity was wrongly denied | Court declined to resolve definitively; followed precedent permitting prohibition here, but certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court and referred rule-change to Appellate Rules Committee |
| Whether the record supports denial of SYG civil immunity (did Nadell meet his burden by a preponderance) | Hursey argued the trial court correctly found Nadell failed to prove self-defense; Hursey’s testimony counted as competent evidence | Nadell argued his testimony and two eyewitnesses established Hursey was the aggressor, entitling him to immunity | Court held the trial court’s finding was supported by competent, substantial evidence (Hursey’s testimony); denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mintz Truppman, P.A. v. Cozen O’Connor, PLC, 346 So. 3d 577 (Fla. 2022) (held prohibition is unavailable to challenge a civil denial based on collateral estoppel and emphasized narrow scope of prohibition)
- English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977) (describes writ of prohibition as extraordinary and confined to preventing actions beyond jurisdiction)
- Corbett v. State, 348 So. 3d 645 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (recognized prohibition as appropriate to review substantive SYG immunity rulings in some pretrial contexts)
- Boston v. State, 326 So. 3d 673 (Fla. 2021) (suggested defendants may seek prohibition to review pretrial SYG hearing legal errors)
- Kumar v. Patel, 227 So. 3d 557 (Fla. 2017) (places burden on defendant to prove SYG immunity by a preponderance of the evidence)
- Snow v. State, 352 So. 3d 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (questions availability of prohibition for SYG interlocutory review and cautions against its broad use)