Central Florida Psychological Consultants, Inc, and W. Steven Saunders v. Jon Comas

── Central Florida Psychological Consultants, Inc, and W. Steven Saunders v. Jon Comas ── Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Date: May 08, 2026 Category: General FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ Case No. 5D2025-0444 LT Case No. 35-2022-CA-828 _____________________________ CENTRAL FLORIDA PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS, INC., and W. STEVEN SAUNDERS, Petitioners, v. JON COMAS, Respondent. _____________________________ Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from the Circuit Court for Lake County, Michael G. Takac, Judge. Derek J. Angell, of O’Connor, Haftel & Angell, PLLC, Orlando, for Petitioners. Dale R. Sisco, Tampa, for Respondent. May 8, 2026 SOUD, J. Petitioners Central Florida Psychological Consultants, Inc. and W. Steven Saunders petition us for a writ of certiorari quashing the trial court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment as to two of three counts in the action brought against them by Respondent Jon Comas. They argue that the litigation privilege grants them absolute immunity from the suit. We grant the petition. I. Comas and his wife got divorced. The legal proceedings surrounding timesharing with their two children endured for years. During the litigation, Saunders was a court-appointed psychologist ordered to provide the presiding judge with a report and recommendations pertaining to a parenting plan. Ultimately, Comas filed a civil suit against Saunders and Central Florida Psychological Consultants, Inc., the practice Saunders owned. The thrust of Comas’s claims is that Saunders was negligent in the preparation of his report recommending a parenting plan during supplemental proceedings in Comas’s divorce case. Saunders and his practice moved for summary judgment, arguing the common law litigation privilege affords absolute immunity from the suit. Comas contended, as he does here, that his claims are permitted by section 61.122(4), Florida Statutes (2022). The trial court denied Petitioners’ motion on two of Comas’s three claims. This certiorari petition followed. II. The discretionary common law writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy because by it we “reach down and halt a miscarriage of justice where no other remedy exists.” See DRJ Atl., LLC v. Babadi, 392 So. 3d 1114, 1118 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024) (citing Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc. v. Machalek, 383 So. 3d 534, 536 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)). We grant certiorari only when a petitioner demonstrates that a challenged order (1) departs from the essential requirements of law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case, (3) that cannot be corrected on post- judgment appeal. See Dep’t of Child. & Fams. v. State, 380 So. 3d 1263, 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024). The last two requirements, combined into the concept of “irreparable harm,” are jurisdictional 2 and must be found to exist before we consider whether an order departs from the essential requirements of law. See id. A trial court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment claiming immunity from suit is reviewable via certiorari because such absolute immunity protects a party from having to defend against suit at all “and waiting until final appeal would render such immunity meaningless if the lower court denied dismissal in error.” James v. Leigh, 145 So. 3d 1006, 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). Thus, if Petitioners are immune from Comas’s suit, they have demonstrated irreparable harm sufficient to invoke our certiorari jurisdiction. The question that remains, then, is whether the trial court’s denial of summary final judgment in favor of Saunders and his practice constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. It does. A. “A departure from the essential requirements of the law is something ‘more than just a legal error.’” Fucci v. State, 420