Epstein Secrets

Epstein here, the plaintiff argued that strict compliance with Rule 1.440 was required. The plaintiff relied upon a previous First District opinion, Bennett v. Continental Chemicals, Inc., 492 So.2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), in which the court adopted a bright line rule that strict compliance with Rule 1

ld not be entitled to enforce the rule under the circumstances of this case. Epstein relies almost exclusively on the Second District's decision in Gawker Media, LLC v. Baal, 170 So.3d 125, 127 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015); which is distinguishable. In Gawker, the plaintiff brought suit against multiple related

because there was no default against Rothstein on the operative complaint. Florida law is clear: "strict compliance with rule 1.440 is mandatory." Bennett v. Cont'l Chemicals, Inc., 492 So. 2d 724, 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (emphasis added).6 At the earliest opportunity on the next business day, Monday,

is an insufficient remedy. As the Second District explained in Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea, 170 So. 3d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015): It is true that the Gawker defendants have available to them the legal remedy of pursuing an appeal from any future final judgment, in which they could complain of the erran

se for trial, the "action" is not "at issue" when Edwards made his request. Florida law is clear: "strict compliance with rule 1.440 is mandatory." Bennett v. Cont'l Chemicals, Inc., 492 So. 2d 724, 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (emphasis added). Accord Teelucksingh v. Teelucksingh, 21 So. 3d 37, 37 (Fla. 2d

Schoof, 190 So. 3d 169, 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) ("Strict compliance with rule 1.440 is required and failure to adhere to it is reversible error."); Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea, 170 So. 3d 125, 131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ("[A] party is absolutely entitled to strict conformance with the terms of rule 1.440,

set 5 EFTA00793771 the cause for trial, the "action" was not "at issue." Florida law is clear: "strict compliance with rule 1.440 is mandatory." Bennett v. Cont'l Chemicals, Inc., 492 So. 2d 724, 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (emphasis added). Accord Teelucksingh v. Teelucksingh, 21 So. 3d 37, 37 (Fla. 2d

Schoof, 190 So. 3d 169, 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) ("Strict compliance with rule 1.440 is required and failure to adhere to it is reversible error."); Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea, 170 So. 3d 125, 131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ("[A] party is absolutely entitled to strict conformance with the terms of rule 1.440,

DCA case recognizing the 16 mandatory nature and compliance, strict 17 compliance with Rule 1.440.• Judge May 14 wrote, 'we don't quarrel with Bennett versus 19 Continental Chemicals.• 20 However, we point out that none of 21 those cases involve the case that has boon 22 pending at issue for

OURT: Despite the representation, 29 The law says, in rule 1.440 in the 29 Ms. Rockenbach, that you made in your motion 24 Bennett case and the Gawker case from the 24 to continue, that Plaintiff and his trial 15 Second DCA, says that this Court has to look 25 counsel will not seek another con