MELBOURNE HMA, LLC, D/B/A WUESTHOFF MEDICAL CENTER-MELBOURNE, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
JANET B. SCHOOF, TERRENCE J. SCHOOF, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Wuesthoff Medical Center sought a writ of mandamus to remove a medical malpractice case from the trial docket scheduled for April 25, 2016. The Florida appellate court granted the writ, finding that the trial court violated Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440 by setting the case for trial before it was at issue and before the mandatory 50-day minimum interval had elapsed.
The court granted the writ of mandamus, finding that strict compliance with Rule 1.440 is required and the trial court deviated from it by scheduling trial for April 25, 2016. The earliest the trial could have been set, had the rule been strictly followed, was May 4, 2016, which is at least 50 days after the last pleading was served.
[1] A case is at issue when all motions directed to the last pleading have been resolved or, if no such motions are filed, 20 days after service of the last pleading.
[2] A party may file a notice that a case is ready for trial only after the case is at issue.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Strict compliance with rule 1.440 is required and failure to adhere to it is reversible error.”
Establishes the mandatory nature of Rule 1.440 compliance and the severity of violations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe last pleading in the case, Schoof's reply to Wuesthoff's answer and affirmative defenses to the second amended complaint, was filed on March 14, 2…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Case At Issue cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, Melbourne HMA, LLC, d/b/a Wuesthoff Medical Center-Melbourne, (‘Wuesthoff’) seeks a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to remove from the April 25, 2016 trial docket the case filed against it by Terence Schoof, individually, and as personal representative of the estate of Janet Schoof. Because the trial court deviated from Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440 by setting the case for trial before it was at issue, we grant the writ.
Pursuant to rule 1.440, “[a]n action is at issue after any motions directed to the last pleading served have been disposed of or, if no such motions are served, 20 days after service of the last pleading.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(a). Once the case is at issue, a party may file and serve a notice that the case is ready to be set for trial. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(b). Thereafter, if the trial court determines the action is ready for trial, the rule directs the trial court to enter an order fixing a date for trial no less than 30 days from the service of the notice. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(c). Thus, the rule “prescribes a minimum interval of fifty days between service of the last pleading and commencement of trial.” Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea, 170 So.3d 125, 129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).
Strict compliance with rule 1.440 is required and failure to adhere to it is reversible error. See Lauxmont Farms, Inc. v. Flavin, 514 So.2d 1133, 1134 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). “Indeed, a trial court’s obligation to hew strictly to the rule’s terms is so well established that it may be enforced by a writ of mandamus compelling the court to strike a noncompliant notice for trial or to remove a case from the trial docket.” Gawker Media, LLC, 170 So.3d at 130 (citing R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Anderson, 90 So.3d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)).
The last pleading in this case, Schoofs reply to Wuesthoff s answer and affirmative defenses to the second amended complaint,1 was filed on March 14, 2016. Pursuant to rule 1.440, twenty days later— Monday, April 4, 2016 — the case was at issue. At that point, Schoof should have filed a new notice for trial.2 Thereafter, the trial court should have filed an order setting the case for trial at least 30 days out. Had the rule been strictly followed, *171the earliest the trial could" have been set was May 4,2016.
Accordingly, we grant the writ, strike the order setting trial for April 25, 2016, and direct the trial court to remove the case from the trial calendar.
PETITION GRANTED.
BERGER, WALLIS and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chancey v. Young, 303 So. 3d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea, 170 So. 3d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
- Lauxmont Farms, Inc. v. Flavin, 514 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Garamone v. A.M. Chudnow, 514 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)