BRUCE A. BERENS, PETITIONER,
v.
HONORABLE WAYNE L. COBB, CIRCUIT JUDGE, SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, 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.
Petitioner Berens sought writs of mandamus and prohibition against a circuit judge who refused to hear motions to dismiss, set aside default, and continue trial before a scheduled jury trial. The appellate court granted the mandamus petition, directing the judge to hear and rule on the motion to dismiss based on a jurisdictional challenge to service of process.
The court granted the petition for writ of mandamus and directed the circuit judge to hear and rule on Berens's motion to dismiss, holding that jurisdictional questions must take precedence over the judge's interest in controlling his docket and avoiding last-minute pretrial motions.
[1] A writ of mandamus is appropriate to compel a judge to rule on a motion challenging personal jurisdiction.
[2] A trial court's need to control its docket and resistance to last-minute motions are secondary to a jurisdictional question.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Mandamus is a common law writ used to direct an official to perform his official duties.”
Establishes the nature and purpose of the mandamus remedy sought by Berens.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBerens learned approximately two and a half weeks before trial that he was a defendant in a pending lawsuit with a default entered against him. He eng…
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 Motion To Continue Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner seeks a petition for writ of mandamus and petition for writ of prohibition arising out of the respondent circuit judge’s refusal to hear and determine petitioner’s motion to dismiss, motion to set aside default and motion to continue jury trial. We deny without prejudice the petition for writ of prohibition and for the reasons discussed below, we grant the petition for writ of mandamus.
In his petition, the petitioner alleges that approximately two and a half weeks prior to the scheduled trial date, he learned that he was a party to a pending lawsuit and that a default had been entered against him. Shortly thereafter, petitioner engaged counsel who determined that the case was set for trial during the week of February 20th. Counsel filed the above referenced motions on February 17, 1989. The basis of the sworn motion to dismiss is that the court lacked jurisdiction over Ber-ens because he was never served with the summons and complaint in the cause and that the purported service was defective and insufficient.
By telephone, counsel attempted to set the motions for hearing prior to the trial’s commencement. Counsel was advised that the circuit judge would not hear the motions and that the trial would proceed as previously scheduled. On Monday February 20, counsel filed the petitions herein addressed.
Upon receipt of the petitions, this court determined that the motion to dismiss was sufficient and adequately alleged grounds that would indicate that the court lacked jurisdiction over the petitioner. This court then stayed the trial pending further order of this court.
Mandamus is a common law writ used to direct an official to perform his official duties. State ex rel. Buckwalter v. City of Lakeland, 112 Fla. 200, 150 So. 508 (1933). Where, as here, the judge refuses to rule on a motion challenging personal jurisdiction, it is appropriate to issue the writ.
We understand and support the trial judge’s need to control his docket, and certainly sympathize with his resistance to last minute pretrial motions. However, these factors must become secondary when the court is faced with a jurisdictional question such as that raised here.
Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of mandamus and direct the circuit judge to hear and rule on Beren’s motion to dismiss.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and RYDER and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.