Opinion
No. 2D21-2426
07-15-2022
Elizabeth COURSEN, Petitioner, v. Robert P. WATROUS Chartered, Respondent.
Elizabeth Coursen, pro se. Robert P. Watrous, pro se.
Elizabeth Coursen, pro se.
Robert P. Watrous, pro se.
ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge. Elizabeth Coursen petitions for a writ of certiorari quashing the trial court's order denying her motion for a jury trial or for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to conduct a jury trial in this small claims matter. Coursen filed a written motion for a jury trial well before the February 23, 2021, pretrial conference, and the minutes of that pretrial conference note the existence of multiple "pending motions," which presumably included that motion as it was indeed still pending. But the trial court judge, who was not at the pretrial conference, subsequently denied the motion, stating that the record did not support the "disputed fact" that Coursen had made the requisite demand for a jury trial under Florida Small Claims Rules 7.150.
The pretrial conference was conducted by the court administrator, which Watrous indicated is common practice in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit.
Rule 7.150 states that a defendant may demand a jury trial "within 10 days after service of the summons/notice to appear or at the pretrial conference, if any." (Emphasis added.)
Having ordered oral argument in the hopes of gaining greater insight into the trial court's reasoning, we were instead left with a disturbing lack of clarity regarding the proceedings below. Nonetheless, we are compelled to dismiss Coursen's petition for lack of jurisdiction without resolving the jury-demand issue on the merits. See Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc. , 720 So. 2d 214, 214–15 (Fla. 1998) (holding that certiorari review of an order striking a jury demand is inappropriate because such an order does not cause irreparable injury that cannot be remedied on direct appeal); Ruffenach v. Ocwen Loan Servs., LLC , 257 So. 3d 541, 542 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (explaining that a lower court's decision to strike the request for a jury trial "is a non-appealable, non-final order not subject to mandamus review"). We emphasize, however, that this dismissal is without prejudice to Coursen's right to raise the denial of her motion for a jury trial, if necessary, on direct appeal.
Petition dismissed.
KELLY and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.