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

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'

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,

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

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,

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