Epstein Secrets

foregoing was furnished by mail to The Honorable Donald W. Hafele, 205 N. Dixie Highway, Room 10.1216, We

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'

's Order entered March 8, 2018, by the Honorable Donald Hafele, denying Epstein's Motion to Remove Case

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

h 13, 2018,' and the circuit court (the Honorable Donald Hafele) has just made two rulings which warrant

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