INTERLOCUTORY

"In civil cases, therefore, the Supreme Court has held that "the denial of a motion to dismiss based upon a claim of absolute immunity from suit is [an] immediately appealable" interlocutory order."

"Interlocutory appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) are designed specifically to resolve “abstract legal issues or issues of pure law.” PFM Air, Inc. v. Dr. Ing. hc. F. Porsche A.G., 751 F. Supp. 2d 1264, 1269 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (internal quotations omitted). “When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves [1] a controlling question of law [2] as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and [3] that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The party seeking the appeal bears the burden to establish that it has met all three elements. Gurzi v. Penn Credit, Corp., 6:19-cv-823-Orl-31EJK, 2020 WL 3288016, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 18, 2020)."

"“Common law certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and should not be used to circumvent the interlocutory appeal rule which authorizes appeal from only a few types of non-final orders.” Martin-Johnson, Inc., v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 1987). For an appellate court to review a nonfinal order by petition for certiorari, the petitioner must demonstrate that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law, thereby causing irreparable injury which cannot be adequately remedied on appeal following final judgment."

"It is true that "`[s]ince an order granting a new trial is an interlocutory order, the district court has plenary power over it'" and may therefore "`reconsider, revise, alter or amend'" that order at any time prior to final judgment. Gallimore v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co.," 635 F.2d 1165, 1171 (5th Cir. Unit A Feb. 1981) (quoting 6A James W. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 59.13[2] at 59-258-59 (2d ed. 1979)); see also McIsaac v. Didriksen Fishing Corp., 809 F.2d 129, 135 (1st Cir. 1987) (district court may reassess prior reasons for grant of new trial). Additionally, if the district court intends to grant a new trial on certain grounds, but fails to include those grounds in the order by oversight or omission, the court may correct the error on its own initiative under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a)."