ANTHONY D. CARTER
v.
RICHARD S. LAWSON
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 sought a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on his motion for entry of default against the respondent/defendant. The court denied the petition, holding that a clerk-entered default under Rule 1.500(a) was unavailable because respondent had already filed an answer to the initial complaint, and mandamus was not an appropriate remedy to compel the trial court to rule on a judicial default motion.
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. A clerk-entered default under Rule 1.500(a) cannot be obtained where a defendant has already filed an answer to the initial complaint. Additionally, mandamus is not available to compel the trial court to rule on a judicial default motion, as this would require the court to exercise discretion rather than perform a non-discretionary ministerial duty.
[1] A clerk of court may enter a default under Rule 1.500(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, only upon a party's failure to file or serve any document in the action, and n…
[2] A writ of mandamus is available only to compel a non-discretionary ministerial duty by a public official where the petitioner has no other legal remedy.
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“Rule 1.500(a) concerns entry of a default by a clerk of court upon failure by "a party against whom affirmative relief is sought" to "file or serve any document in the action."”
Establishes the statutory requirement for clerk entry of default and explains why it was unavailable in this case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner filed a motion for default under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(a), seeking entry of default by the Clerk of Duval County against re…
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 Entry Of Default cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to rule on Petitioner’s pending motion to hear and rule and on his “Request for Entry of Default on Defendant’s Failure to Plead.” Petitioner filed a motion for default under Rule 1.500(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and in that motion sought entry of default by the Clerk of the Court of Duval County. Respondent, as defendant below, filed an answer to the initial complaint but has apparently not responded to the amended complaint.
Rule 1.500(a) concerns entry of a default by a clerk of court upon failure by “a party against whom affirmative relief is sought” to “file or serve any document in the action.” Since Respondent has filed an answer to the initial complaint, a default cannot be entered by the Duval Clerk under rule 1.500(a) as Petitioner has requested. See Azure-Moore Inv. LLC v. Hoyen, 300 So. 3d 1268, 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020); Becker v. Re/Max Horizons Realty, Inc., 819 So. 2d 887, 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
In his petition with this court, petitioner seeks us to compel the trial court to rule on his motion for default. But the trial court cannot be compelled to rule here. See Conner v. Moran, 278 So. 3d 790, 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (“The writ of mandamus is available only to compel a non-discretionary ministerial duty by a public official where the petitioner has no other legal remedy to obtain the relief sought.”).
Here, any default would have to be a judicial default under rule 1.500(b).
Petitioner has not shown that he has sought the entry of such a default from the trial court.
Accordingly, the petition is DENIED. B.L. THOMAS, BILBREY, and NORDBY, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Becker v. RE/MAX Horizons Realty, Inc., 819 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)