Digitalbridge Partners, III, LP v. Cariaco Technologies, Inc. - Certiorari Review

FL District Court of Appeal Opinions

Filed March 11th, 2026

Detected March 12th, 2026

Summary

The Florida District Court of Appeal granted a petition for certiorari, quashing a lower court's order that denied a motion to stay proceedings. The court found that the lower court departed from the essential requirements of law by failing to apply the principle of priority, creating a risk of inconsistent rulings in substantially similar actions.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of certiorari, quashing a non-final order from the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit that denied a motion to stay proceedings. The appellate court determined that the lower court departed from the essential requirements of law by failing to apply the principle of priority, which mandates that a later-filed action should be stayed when substantially similar actions are pending in different courts, absent special circumstances. The case involves a dispute over a software development agreement and the interpretation of ownership interests, with the appellate court emphasizing the risk of irreparable harm due to potentially inconsistent rulings.

This decision means that the proceedings in the Palm Beach County action will be stayed pending the resolution of the related, first-filed action in Miami-Dade County. Legal professionals involved in this matter should be aware that the trial court's order has been overturned, and the principle of priority in litigation has been upheld. This ruling highlights the importance of carefully considering the pendency of related actions in different jurisdictions to avoid duplicative litigation and the risk of conflicting judgments. No specific compliance deadlines or penalties are mentioned in this opinion, as it pertains to procedural matters in ongoing litigation.

What to do next

Review the appellate court's decision regarding the principle of priority in litigation.
Assess the implications for ongoing or potential litigation involving parallel actions in different jurisdictions.
Consult with legal counsel regarding the impact on the specific case proceedings.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 11, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Digitalbridge Partners, III, LP and DBP III Snowbird Bidco, LLC v. Cariaco Technologies, Inc. and Cariaco Consulting, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Citations: None known
Docket Number: 4D2025-2434
Disposition: Affirmed
Opinion
Authorities (2)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Disposition

Affirmed

Combined Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT

DIGITALBRIDGE PARTNERS, III, LP, and
DBP III SNOWBIRD BIDCO, LLC,
Petitioners,

CARIACO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Florida corporation, and
CARIACO CONSULTING, INC., a Florida corporation,
Respondents.

No. 4D2025-2434

[March 11, 2026]

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Bradley G. Harper, Judge; L.T. Case
No. 50-2024-CA-011356-XXXA-MB.

Beverly A. Pohl of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Boca Raton,
and Kimberly J. Freedman and Mark F. Raymond of Nelson Mullins Riley
& Scarborough LLP, Miami, for petitioners.

Alan B. Rose and Carly M. Weiss of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, West
Palm Beach, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Digitalbridge Partners, III, LP, and DPB III Snowbird Bidco, LLC, seek
certiorari review of a nonfinal order denying their motion to stay
proceedings in the Palm Beach County action pending resolution of a
related, first-filed action in Miami-Dade County. We grant the petition and
quash the order.

Certiorari relief is appropriate where a trial court departs from the
essential requirements of law and causes irreparable harm that cannot be
remedied on plenary appeal. InPhyNet Contracting Servs., Inc. v. Matthews,
196 So. 3d 449, 462–63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). The risk of an inconsistent
ruling on the same dispositive issue by another court constitutes
irreparable harm. Id. at 463.
Both actions arise from the same Software Development Agreement and
the same threshold question: whether that agreement conferred a 5%
ownership or equity interest in HControl Corporation upon Rafael Marquez
or his entities, respondents in this action. That issue underlies all claims
asserted in this Palm Beach County action and has already been
adjudicated by the Miami-Dade court in resolving declaratory relief claims
arising from the same agreement. Allowing the Palm Beach County action
to proceed simultaneously creates a substantial risk of inconsistent
rulings on the same contract interpretation issue.

We find the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law
by failing to apply the principle of priority. When substantially similar
actions are pending in different courts, the later-filed action should be
stayed absent special circumstances. Toth v. Toth, 359 So. 3d 352, 354
(Fla. 4th DCA 2023). Identity of parties or causes of action is not required
for a stay; substantial similarity of the issues is sufficient. Spacebox
Dover, LLC v. LSREF2 Baron LLC, 112 So. 3d 751, 752 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).
Here, no special or extraordinary circumstances justified denial of a stay.

Accordingly, we grant the petition, quash the order denying the stay,
and remand with instructions to stay the Palm Beach County proceedings
pending further disposition of the related Miami-Dade County action or
the associated appeals currently pending in this court. This disposition is
procedural only and does not address the merits of any party’s claims.

Petition granted; order quashed; and remanded with instructions.

MAY, CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.