Epstein Secrets

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

violation of Rule 1.440 long before now. His failure to do so constitutes a waiver of the right to rely on the rule. This Court's decision in Labor Ready Se. Inc. v. Australian Warehouses Condo. MI, 962 So.2d 1053 (Ha. 4th DCA 2007) is controlling. There, the case was set for final hearing on April 17.

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,

y occur where—unlike in this case—an amended pleading is filed subsequent to an otherwise compliant order setting_trial under Rule 1.440. See Labor Ready Se. Inc. v. Australian Warehouses Condo. Ass'n, 962 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Labor Ready was another final appeal, not a mandamus proceeding.

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,

ief and strict compliance with Rule 1.440. A waiver also may occur if there is simply a "last minute technical amendment to a complaint." See Labor Ready Se. Ina v. Australian Warehouses Condo. Ass'n, 962 So. 2d 1053, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). That is not what occurred here. Thus, Judge Hafele erroneous