Epstein Secrets

emicals, Inc., 19 492 So.2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) Campbell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 1 204 So.3d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea 20, 21, 22 170 So.3d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) Grossman v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 14 570 So.2d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) Haft v. Adams, 1 238 So.2

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'

.A., 204 So. 3d 476, 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (citing Genuine Parts Co. v. Parsons, 917 So. 2d 419, 421 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) and Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea, 170 So. 3d 125, 130 (Ha. 2d DCA 2015)). I In compliance with this Court's Administrative Order No. 2014-1, the Petitioner has contemporaneously fi

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

9, 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, including its mandat

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