Epstein Secrets

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.

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'

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.

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

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

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