Opinion
No. 2D22-3228
05-03-2023
BEYOND BILLING, INC., Petitioner, v. SPINE AND ORTHOPEDIC CENTER, P.C., Respondent.
Mark D. Tinker of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Tampa; and Francesca M. Stein of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for Petitioner. Anthony J. Fantauzzi, III, of The Fantauzzi Law Firm, P.A., Tampa, for Respondent.
Mark D. Tinker of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Tampa; and Francesca M. Stein of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for Petitioner.
Anthony J. Fantauzzi, III, of The Fantauzzi Law Firm, P.A., Tampa, for Respondent.
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Beyond Billing, Inc., has filed a petition for writ of mandamus to compel the circuit court to enter a final judgment on an arbitration award. It claims that the trial court has a ministerial duty to enter the judgment because neither party filed a motion for trial de novo within twenty days after the arbitration award was served on the parties. See § 44.103(5), Fla. Stat. (2021) ("An arbitration decision shall be final if a request for a trial de novo is not filed within the time provided by rules promulgated by the Supreme Court."); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.820(h) ("If a motion for trial is not made within 20 days of service on the parties of the decision, the decision shall be referred to the presiding judge, who shall enter such orders and judgments as may be required to carry out the terms of the decision as provided by section 44.103(5), Florida Statutes."). We deny the petition because within twenty days of the arbitration award, the parties indicated a mutual intention to proceed to trial by executing a joint stipulated motion to amend the case management order.
The purpose of filing a motion for trial under rule 1.820 is to give the other side "notice that it should be prepared for trial." Nicholson-Kenny Cap. Mgmt., Inc. v. Steinberg , 932 So. 2d 321, 325 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). A party substantially complies with the rule by clearly indicating its desire to proceed to trial within the applicable twenty-day period, even if it does not file a document specifically styled as a motion for trial de novo. See de Acosta v. Naples Cmty. Hosp., Inc. , 300 So. 3d 264, 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) ; Steinberg , 932 So. 2d at 324.
The parties' joint motion acknowledged that arbitration had occurred and stipulated that the parties required additional time to conduct discovery and to add new claims to the case. It also stated that the case would be "ready for trial" at the projected trial date previously set by the court. We hold that the execution of this joint motion sufficiently indicated the parties' mutual desire and intent to proceed to trial and that Beyond Billing has waived strict compliance with the rule. See de Acosta , 300 So. 3d at 267 ; Steinberg , 932 So. 2d at 324 ; see also Vitesse, Inc. v. MAPL Assocs. LLC , No. 4D21-2966, 358 So.3d 437, 438–39 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 22, 2023). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
We note Beyond Billing's reliance on this court's decision in Gambrel v. Sampson , 330 So. 3d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021). However, that case dealt only with the untimely filing of a motion for trial due to a unilateral calendaring error and did not involve any joint document or conduct that could be deemed a "gotcha tactic." Id. at 115, 118.
Petition denied.
BLACK and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.