Epstein Secrets

ice for trial, and the trial judge is ultimately responsible for ensuring compliance with the rule. The following excerpt from the First District's Bennett decision "succinctly encapsulates" what occurred here: The requirement of notice is mandatory. . . . The procedure for setting actions for trial i

FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS On Review of a Non-Final Order of the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Kara Berard Rockenbach, Esq. Scott J. Link, Esq. Rachel J. Glasser, Esq. Link & Rockenbach, PA Appellate Counsel for Petitioner 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. Suite 301

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

ICHOLE J. SEGAL Florida Bar No. 41232 /kbt 29 EFTA00808547 SERVICE LIST Epstein v. Rothstein/Edwards Case No. 4D18-0762 Scott J. Link, Esq. Kara Berard Rockenbach, Esq. Rachel J. Glasser, Esq. LINK & ROCKENBACH, PA 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. Ste. 301 h, Florida 33401 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Jack A.

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

N FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS On Review of a Non-Final Order of the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Kara Berard Rockenbach, Esq. Scott J. Link, Esq. Rachel J. Glasser, Esq. Link & Rockenbach, PA A ellate Counsel for Petitioner EFTA00793730 INTRODUCTION In this Eme