Shuffler v. Bascom Palmer Eye Institute

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Shuffler v. Bascom Palmer Eye Institute

478 So. 2d 418, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2480, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16641

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 5, 1985

DocketNo. 85-1513

StatusPublished

This text of 478 So. 2d 418 (Shuffler v. Bascom Palmer Eye Institute) 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.

Bluebook

Shuffler v. Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, 478 So. 2d 418, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2480, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16641 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an original petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a trial court order striking the plaintiff/petitioner Henderson Shuffler’s demand for a jury trial filed below. We have jurisdiction to entertain this petition if the trial court’s order constitutes a departure from essential requirements of law. Valiante v. Allstate Insurance Co., 462 So.2d 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Magram v. Raffel, 443 So.2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Spring v. Ronel Refining, Inc., 421 So.2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Art. V, § 4(b)(3), Fla. Const.

We conclude that the petition for certiorari should be granted and the order under review quashed, upon a holding that it was a departure from the essential requirements of law to strike the demand for jury trial herein. Although the plaintiff Shuffler waived his right to a jury trial in the county court action he filed below when he failed to file a timely demand for same under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.430(b), the cause became a new action when the complaint was amended, with leave of court, to allege damages in excess of the jurisdictional limit of the county court, see § 34.01(l)(c)2, Fla. Stat. (1983), and the action was transferred to the circuit court. At that point, the plaintiff Shuffler properly filed a timely demand for a jury trial along with his amended complaint pursuant to Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.430(b) in the new circuit court action. In our view, the trial court erred in thereafter striking this timely demand. See Hollywood, Inc. v. City of Hollywood, 321 So.2d 65 (Fla.1975).

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order under review is quashed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to reinstate the subject demand for a jury trial.

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an original petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a trial court order striking the plaintiff/petitioner Henderson Shuffler’s demand for a jury trial filed below. We have jurisdiction to entertain this petition if the trial court’s order constitutes a departure from essential requirements of law. Valiante v. Allstate Insurance Co., 462 So.2d 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Magram v. Raffel, 443 So.2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Spring v. Ronel Refining, Inc., 421 So.2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Art. V, § 4(b)(3), Fla. Const.

We conclude that the petition for certiorari should be granted and the order under review quashed, upon a holding that it was a departure from the essential requirements of law to strike the demand for jury trial herein. Although the plaintiff Shuffler waived his right to a jury trial in the county court action he filed below when he failed to file a timely demand for same under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.430(b), the cause became a new action when the complaint was amended, with leave of court, to allege damages in excess of the jurisdictional limit of the county court, see § 34.01(l)(c)2, Fla. Stat. (1983), and the action was transferred to the circuit court. At that point, the plaintiff Shuffler properly filed a timely demand for a jury trial along with his amended complaint pursuant to Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.430(b) in the new circuit court action. In our view, the trial court erred in thereafter striking this timely demand. See Hollywood, Inc. v. City of Hollywood, 321 So.2d 65 (Fla.1975).

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order under review is quashed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to reinstate the subject demand for a jury trial.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 So. 2d 418, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2480, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shuffler-v-bascom-palmer-eye-institute-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack