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

e final hearing without objection. No one argued they were not ready for trial, but simply argued a technical violation of rule 1.440. On appeal in Labor Ready, the defendants argued that the Rule 1.440 violation entitled them to a new hearing. This Court rejected the argument, noting that the defendants'

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

raises no objection to the noncompliance." [e.a.] Id. at 1055 (quoting Parrish, 505 So. 2d at 648). The case at bar is clearly distinguishable from Labor Ready. First, Epstein did not waive the error by appearing at trial without raising an objection. See id. Again, Epstein adamantly voiced his objection b

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

this Court's Labor Ready decision as the controlling precedent governing his authority to deny Epstein's motion to remove the case from the docket. Labor Ready, though well-decided, is both distinguishable and inapplicable to this case. First of all, Labor Ready was a final appeal, not a mandamus proceedin