Garcia v. Lincare, Inc., 5D05-1332.
| Decision Date | 29 July 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D05-1332.,5D05-1332. |
| Citation | 906 So.2d 1268 |
| Parties | Hector GARCIA, as Personal Representative, etc., Petitioner, v. LINCARE INC. and Deb Robinson, Pharm.D., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carlos R. Diez-Arguelles of Martinez, Manglardi, Diez-Arguelles & Tejedor, P.A., Orlando, for Petitioner.
W. Cleveland Acree, II, and Daniel A. Tressler, II, of The Unger Law Group, P.L., Orlando, for Respondents.
Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to set this case for trial. Despite the fact that the case is "at issue," as contemplated by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440, and that several notices for trial informed the court of such, the court has refused to set a trial date because discovery is not yet completed. We have jurisdiction, grant the petition and issue the writ. Pate v. Sawaya, 663 So.2d 679 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
In this medical malpractice case, Petitioner filed several notices for trial after the closure of the pleadings. In response, Respondents filed various objections claiming that the case is not ready for trial because of trial conflicts and outstanding discovery. On each occasion, the trial court sustained the objections, concluding that it would not set the case for trial until discovery had been completed. We think the trial court's conclusion misapprehends the applicable rule. Procedural readiness for trial differs from actual readiness for trial. It is the former, coupled with a properly filed "Notice for Trial," that imposes upon the court the mandatory duty to set a trial date. Kubera v. Fisher, 483 So.2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
On this issue, we agree with Judge Padovano's commentary:
A case is said to be ready for trial when it is at issue but in this context the term "ready" is used in a legal sense to mean that the pleadings are closed. It does not necessarily mean the lawyers are prepared to try the case. Often the lawyers will not be ready for trial when the date is set because they will not have comp[l]eted all the discovery by then. However, the fact that discovery remains to be completed has no bearing on whether the case is at issue and it is not a valid reason to delay the entry of an order setting trial.
Philip J. Padovano, Florida Civil Practice, § 15.2 (2004-2005 ed.).
Although not the basis upon which the trial court ruled, Respondents urge that, alternatively, the petition should be denied because Petitioner has recently filed a motion to amend the complaint to seek punitive damages, thereby reopening the pleadings. Although the filing of an amended...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodgson v. Cruises
...on whether the case is at issue and it is not a valid reason to delay the entry of an order setting trial. Garcia v. Lincare Inc., 906 So.2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (quoting Philip J. Padovano, Florida Civil Practice, § 15.2 (2004-2005 ...
-
Rolle ex rel. Dabrio v. Birken
...must act upon the notice within a reasonable time and give the parties a trial date. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(a); Garcia v. Lincare Inc., 906 So.2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Ivans v. Greenbaum, 613 So.2d 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Kubera v. Fisher, 483 So.2d 836, 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Acc......
-
Parkinson v. Kia Motors Corp..
...deciding when a case should be tried. Putting aside the irony of this argument, we are bound to agree with it. In Garcia v. Lincare, Inc., 906 So.2d 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), we dealt with a similar issue. There, the petitioner had filed several notices for trial after closure of the pleadi......
-
Bush-Radomski v. Krisan
...at issue and noticed for trial, the court must act upon the notice and give the parties a trial date.1 See Garcia v. Lincare, Inc., 906 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. TRAVER and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.1 As we stated in Garcia:[W]e emphasize that the trial court......
-
Setting a case for trial: Rule 1.440 means what it says.
...are receptive to this argument, despite clear appellate authority holding these very objections to be irrelevant. In Garcia v. Lincare, 906 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), the Fifth District issued a writ of mandamus to a trial judge who sustained objections to setting a case for trial aft......
-
Chapter 13-2 Setting Trials
...under Rule 1.440, [they] waived any error pursuant to Rule 1.440.").[11] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(a).[12] Garcia v. Lincare, Inc., 906 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).[13] Philip J. Padovano, Florida Civil Practice, § 15.2 [**3] (2004-2005 ed.).[14] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(c).[15] Rolle v. Birke......
-
Chapter 13-2 Setting Trials
...under Rule 1.440, [they] waived any error pursuant to Rule 1.440.").[11] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(a).[12] Garcia v. Lincare, Inc., 906 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).[13] Philip J. Padovano, Florida Civil Practice, § 15.2 [**3] (2004-2005 ed.).[14] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(c).[15] Rolle v. Birke......