Epstein Secrets

4) 17 Alamo Rent-A-Car v. Mancusi, 24 632 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 1994) Bennett v. Continental Chemicals, 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

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'

Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Mandamus is "a proper vehicle to enforce the time restrictions for the setting of a trial under rule 1.440." Campbell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.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) an

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

ing so because the appellant already will have been forced to trial in violation of the rule. [e.a.] Gawker Media, LLC, 170 So. 3d at 131. See also Campbell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 204 So. 3d 476, 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (citing Gawker, and stating: "In that context, the appellate remedy was deemed i

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