TULSI
v.
RAMLAGAN

Fla. 2d DCA | 2025-05-21
No. 2024-1592
2025 FL 4254 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2025)

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.

Synopsis

Maylene Tulsi appeals a final judgment entered after what the circuit court claimed was a trial, but the appellate court found the trial was never properly noticed or scheduled in compliance with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The court reversed and remanded because the lack of proper notice violated the parties' right to procedural due process.

Holding

The final judgment cannot stand because the trial was never properly noticed for the date on which it supposedly took place, in violation of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(c), and the record contains no evidence supporting that the parties consented to trial on that date. This violated the parties' right to procedural due process.

Headnotes

[1] A trial court cannot conduct a trial on a date for which the trial was never noticed.

[2] A trial court's failure to provide notice of a trial date violates a party's right to procedural due process.

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
Key Quotes

“If the court finds the action ready to be set for trial, it shall enter an order fixing a date for trial. Trial shall be set not less than 30 days from the service of the notice for trial.”

Establishes the mandatory procedural requirement for notice and scheduling of trials under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(c)

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

The circuit court entered a final judgment purportedly following a trial. However, the court never noticed the trial for the date on which it supposed…

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.

Opinion of the Court

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MAYLENE TULSI,

Appellant,

v. PRAVU RAMLAGAN, as personal representative of the Estate of Narendranauth Ramlagan, deceased,

Appellee.

Nos. 2D2024-0902, 2D2024-1592

CONSOLIDATED

May 21, 2025

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Nancy L. Jacobs, Judge.

Nicole Deese Newlon of Johnson, Newlon & DeCort, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Allison M. Perry of Florida Appeals, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge. Maylene Tulsi appeals a final judgment entered by the circuit court purportedly following a trial. But the court never noticed the trial for the date on which it supposedly took place, see Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(c) (2023) ("If the court finds the action ready to be set for trial, it shall enter an order fixing a date for trial. Trial shall be set not less than 30 days from the service of the notice for trial."); see also Brown v. Reynolds, 872 So. 2d 290, 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ("[Rule 1.440] is designed to safeguard

KHOUZAM and MOE, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.

Footnotes
2 the parties' right to procedural due process." (citing Parrish v. Dougherty, 505 So. 2d 646, 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987))), and nothing in the record supports the court's finding that the parties agreed or otherwise consented to conduct the trial on that date. Indeed, everything that is before us strongly supports a finding to the contrary. We therefore reverse and remand for vacatur of the final judgment and for further proceedings.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw