MICHAEL PULWER v. PEARL BROTHERS, LLC
This text of MICHAEL PULWER v. PEARL BROTHERS, LLC (MICHAEL PULWER v. PEARL BROTHERS, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed October 26, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-1462 Lower Tribunal No. 19-20017 ________________
Michael Pulwer, et al., Petitioners,
vs.
Pearl Brothers, LLC, et al., Respondents.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Mandamus.
Simon, Schindler & Sandberg, LLP, and Roger J. Schindler; Law Offices of Kent Harrison Robbins, P.A., and Kent Harrison Robbins, for petitioners.
Carlson & Associates, P.A., and Curtis Carlson, and Joseph Muzaurieta, for respondents.
Before EMAS, LINDSEY, and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Petitioners Michael Pulwer and 7020 NW 72nd Avenue, LLC,
(Defendants below), seek mandamus relief from an order denying their
Motion to Strike Uniform Trial Order Setting Cause for Jury Trial. Petitioners
argue trial was set in violation of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440
because the action is not yet at issue. An action is at issue and ready to be
set for trial “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). Here, there are two pending motions
to dismiss directed at the operative complaint. Accordingly, the order setting
the cause for jury trial was entered in violation of Rule 1.440.
Because we are bound by Ludeca, Inc. v. Alignment & Condition
Monitoring, Inc., 276 So. 3d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), we are compelled to
grant the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and quash the trial court’s order
setting the cause for trial. See also Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea, 170 So.
3d 125, 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (“Indeed, a trial court’s obligation to hew
strictly to [Rule 1.440’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.”).
2 Petition granted. 1
1 We withhold issuance of the formal writ because we are confident the lower court will comply.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
MICHAEL PULWER v. PEARL BROTHERS, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-pulwer-v-pearl-brothers-llc-fladistctapp-2022.