WESTCHESTER GENERAL HOSPITAL INC., A/K/A WESTCHESTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, A/K/A WESTCHESTER GENERAL OSTEOPATHIC HOSPITAL AND SYLVIA URLICH, A/K/A SYLVIA URLICH FOX, AN INDIVIDUAL, PETITIONERS,
v.
STEPHEN MARC SLEPIN, 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.
A hospital and individual challenged a trial court's denial of their demand for a jury trial in an attorney's fees action. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that the petitioners' own representations that a compulsory counterclaim would not raise new issues estopped them from later claiming the counterclaim revived their jury trial right.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the jury trial demand. Petitioners were estopped from requesting a jury trial based on representations they made at the prior hearing that the counterclaim would not present new issues.
[1] A party may be estopped from asserting a right to a jury trial when their prior representations to the court induced a ruling that would be undermined by the subsequent a…
[2] A court may deny a jury trial demand on a compulsory counterclaim if the counterclaim does not introduce new issues and was permitted based on representations that it wou…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“leave to file the counterclaim had been predicated upon an understanding that it would not present new issues or produce any further delay in the trial schedule”
Establishes the basis for the court's decision—petitioners' own representations formed the predicate for the grant of leave to file the counterclaim
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent sued to recover attorney's fees. Petitioners answered without requesting a jury trial. After the case was pending for over a year, petition…
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 Jury Trial Demand cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Petitioners seek review by certiorari, challenging an order by which their demand for a jury trial was denied. We conclude that the court below did not err in this regard, and we therefore decline to issue the requested writ.
Respondent filed an action seeking to recover attorney’s fees. Petitioners answered the complaint and did not request a jury trial. Discovery ensued and a trial date was scheduled. After the case had been pending for over a year, and with less than one month remaining until the scheduled trial, petitioners sought a continuance due to recently-discovered information. At the hearing on this motion petitioners also sought leave to file a compulsory counterclaim. Indicating that it would grant a continuance, the court rescheduled trial and imposed rigid deadlines for any further discovery. Expressing concern that the rescheduled trial date not be again postponed, the court also indicated that it would grant leave to file a counterclaim after petitioners’ counsel agreed with the statement of respondent’s counsel that “everything in their compulsory counterclaim ... is already in their affirmative defenses.... It doesn’t raise anything new_”
The order granting petitioners’ motion notes the court’s understanding that the counterclaim would not delay commencement of the rescheduled trial. However, after the counterclaim was filed and respondent submitted an answer petitioners filed a demand for jury trial. Another hearing was held, and petitioners’ counsel argued that the counterclaim did in fact present new issues by which their right to request a jury trial was revived in accordance with Hollywood Inc. v. City of Hollywood, 321 So. 2d 65 (Fla.1975). The court nevertheless denied the demand for a jury trial, stating that leave to file the counterclaim had been predicated upon an understanding that it would not present new issues or produce any further delay in the trial schedule. We conclude that the court’s determination in this regard is consistent with the parties’ representations at the prior hearing. Having induced the court’s prior ruling by such representations, petitioners may not maintain a contrary position, and the court thus did not abuse its authority by declining to grant the requested jury trial.
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
SMITH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.