Nils Futch v. Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 189 So. 3d 131

Background

Futch was stopped for suspected DUI and allegedly refused a blood-alcohol test; DHSMV suspended his license for one year effective March 15, 2013.
At the administrative review, the hearing officer limited counsel to two questions of Futch’s expert witness; DHSMV upheld the suspension.
On first-tier certiorari, the circuit court found the hearing officer’s evidentiary limitation violated due process and invalidated the suspension, directing reinstatement of Futch’s license.
The Fifth District granted second-tier certiorari, agreed a due-process violation occurred, but held the circuit court erred by reinstating the license and that the proper remedy was remand to DHSMV for a new administrative hearing.
The Florida Supreme Court granted review and held the Fifth District lacked jurisdiction to secondarily review the circuit court’s remedy decision via certiorari, quashed the Fifth District opinion, and remanded to reinstate the circuit court’s order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Fifth District properly exercised second-tier certiorari to review the circuit court’s remedy	Futch argued circuit court’s reinstatement was a permissible remedy for due-process violation	DHSMV argued the correct remedy is remand for further administrative proceedings; district court may review circuit court	Supreme Court: Fifth District improperly expanded certiorari jurisdiction; quashed district court decision and reinstated circuit court order
Whether the circuit court had authority to set aside the suspension and reinstate the license rather than remand	Futch relied on finding of due-process deprivation to obtain license reinstatement	DHSMV relied on precedent that quashing an administrative order requires remand, not a merits judgment	Majority: circuit court’s reinstatement was not reviewable by second-tier certiorari; remedy question improperly reviewed by Fifth District; reinstated circuit court order (quashing Fifth DCA)
Whether limiting counsel’s questioning of expert violated due process	Futch argued the limitation denied meaningful opportunity to present defense	DHSMV did not contest that limitation violated due process for purposes of the appeals	Both courts (circuit and Fifth DCA) found a due-process violation; Supreme Court’s disposition centered on jurisdictional scope rather than relitigating the due-process finding
Whether there was a miscarriage of justice justifying second-tier certiorari review	Futch argued the evidentiary error warranted the circuit court’s remedy and no further review necessary	DHSMV (and dissent) argued the circuit court’s remedy produced a miscarriage by denying DHSMV another administrative hearing	Majority: no miscarriage of justice for purposes of the Fifth District’s certiorari review; certiorari cannot be used as a second appeal

Key Cases Cited

Nader v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehs., 87 So.3d 712 (Fla. 2012) (limits on expanding certiorari jurisdiction)
Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1995) (certiorari relief requires departure from essential requirements of law)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So.2d 885 (Fla. 2003) (certiorari requires more than simple legal error)
Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So.2d 679 (Fla. 2000) (standard for departure from essential requirements of law)
Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Robinson, 93 So.3d 1090 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (related district-court decisions on administrative-review remedies)
McLaughlin v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 128 So.3d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (related district-court decisions on administrative-review remedies)
Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Edenfield, 58 So.3d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (related district-court decisions on administrative-review remedies)
Broward Cty. v. G.B.V. Int’l, Ltd., 787 So.2d 838 (Fla. 2001) (when a reviewing court quashes on certiorari, it must leave the matter for the tribunal to consider anew)
Tamiami Trail Tours Inc. v. R.R. Comm’n, 174 So. 451 (Fla. 1937) (historical principle that certiorari review cannot enter merits or direct a particular administrative order)
Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So.3d 1086 (Fla. 2010) (second-tier certiorari requires showing of clearly established principle violated resulting in miscarriage of justice)
Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 (U.S. 1982) (appellate remand principle: remand proper unless record allows only one factual resolution)