JOHN N. LEOPOLD AND THE WANDA MARINE CORPORATION, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, PETITIONERS,
v.
RICHARD BERTRAM & COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
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.
The court held that original defendants waived their right to a jury trial by failing to demand it in their initial responsive pleadings.
Petitioners were defendants in a five-count action and did not demand a jury trial in their initial responsive pleadings. The plaintiff later amended …
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 Florida Rules Of Civil Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
In 1971 the petitioners were named as defendants in a five-count action instituted in the circuit court. No demand for jury trial was made in the original complaint; no demand for jury trial was contained in the original responsive pleadings.1 The plaintiff then amended its complaint by adding Count 6, naming a new party-defendant. As to the original defendants, the issues remained the same. Thereafter, the original defendants sought to have the matter placed on the jury docket; the trial judge denied the request. This certiorari was presented, contending that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law when it denied these original defendants a jury trial.
The application for certiorari should be denied because there has been no showing that the trial judge departed from the essential requirements of law. The original defendants, having elected to waive their right to a jury trial at the time of their initial responsive pleadings, are not entitled to request such upon an amendment to the complaint which merely added a new party but no new issues as to the original defendants. 2 Our Florida rule regarding jury trials was originally adopted in March of 1954; it was patterned after the Federal rules. Prior to the adoption of the Florida rule there had been two decisions of the Federal courts, which indicated that in a situation such as that presented by this record the original defendants would not be entitled to seek a jury trial after the expiration of the time provided for in the rules. See: Reeves v. Pennsylvania Railroad, D.Del.1949, 9 F.R.D. 487; Mack v. 48 Vesey Street Corp., S.D.N.Y.1947, 7 F.R.D. 487.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hollywood, Inc. v. City OF Hollywood, 321 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1975)…a new issue in the case the time for filing a demand for a jury trial is revived although the party making the demand may have waived the right to a jury trial at the time of the initial responsive pleadings. See Leopold v. Richard Bertram and Co., 276 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) and Moretto v. Sussman, 274 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). It is not contended that Respondent failed to make a demand for jury trial timely to its amended answer and cross-claim. [*73] The determination of whether a trial judge…
-
Laing v. Fid. Broad. Corp., 436 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…eventual dismissal as a defendant in the case. Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment against National and remand for a new trial by jury. REVERSED and REMANDED. ORFINGER, C.J., and COWART, J., concur. . See Leopold v. Richard Bertram & Co., 276 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) (where petitioners were named as defendants in the complaint, which did not contain a demand for jury trial, and they did not make a demand in their responsive pleadings. Thereafter, the plaintiffs amended complaint added a count…