Epstein Secrets

afele, 205 N. Dixie Highway, Room 10.1216, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and to all counsel on the attached service list, by email, on March 12, 2018. Jack Scarola, Esq. Karen Terry, Esq. David J. Vitale, Jr. Esq. SEARCY DENNY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL

GENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS SEARCY DENNY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes

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'

93746 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Petition was furnished via email this 8'h day of March, 2018: Jack Scarola Sears , Denn , Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. Nichole J. Segal Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A. and i 350 Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Pla

E I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Petition was furnished via email this 8'h day of March, 2018: Jack Scarola Sears , Denn , Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. Nichole J. Segal Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A. and i 350 Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwar

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

0793784 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Motion was furnished via email this 8th day of March, 2018: Jack Scarola Shipley, P.A. Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards Nichole J. Segal Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A. 350 1 o- ounse or

shed via email this 8th day of March, 2018: Jack Scarola Shipley, P.A. Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-

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