Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea
170 So. 3d 125
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Terry "Hulk Hogan" Bollea sued Gawker defendants after Gawker posted an excerpt of a secretly recorded sex tape; multiple defendants were named, including Blogwire Hungary (Blogwire).
- Blogwire contested personal jurisdiction and appealed the circuit court's denial of its dismissal motion; that appeal was pending while other defendants remained in the circuit court case.
- The circuit court severed claims against Blogwire and tentatively set a July 6, 2015 trial date for the remaining defendants; this court later quashed the severance and trial-setting orders on May 7, 2015.
- Bollea sought to preserve the July trial date by (a) threatening to voluntarily dismiss Blogwire and (b) filing an amended complaint adding punitive damages; on June 18 he dismissed Blogwire and amended to seek punitive damages.
- On June 19 the circuit court ordered that defendants need not plead further and set trial for July 6; Gawker defendants objected that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440 requires longer minimum intervals and sought mandamus relief.
- The Second District granted mandamus, concluding the June 19 trial-setting violated rule 1.440's mandatory timing and ordering the trial date stricken and removed from the July docket.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court could set trial for July 6, 2015 despite pending pleadings and Blogwire appeal | Bollea argued the July date should be preserved; dismissal of Blogwire and court excusing further pleadings rendered the case at issue so trial could proceed | Gawker argued rule 1.440 mandates fixed timing (20-day pleadings closure + 30-day minimum to trial = 50 days) and the July 6 date was too early | Court held rule 1.440 was violated; June 19 order setting July 6 trial was unlawful and must be rescinded |
| Whether the court could deem defendants waived from responding to punitive damages and thereby shorten the 20-day period | Bollea and court treated defendants as excused from pleading, claiming waiver of right to file motions directed to last pleading | Gawker contended only the party entitled to file such motions may waive them by filing notice; the court cannot unilaterally waive the waiting period for scheduling | Court held waiver of the 20-day waiting period is a party prerogative, not a judicial act; even if waived on June 19, the court still could not set trial earlier than required under the rule |
| Appropriateness of mandamus vs. appeal or certiorari to enforce strict compliance with rule 1.440 | Bollea suggested prior unpublished decisions limited pretrial writ relief and that appeal or certiorari could remedy any error | Gawker argued mandamus is appropriate to compel performance of a clear legal duty and that appeal is inadequate because it cannot undo a forced premature trial | Court held mandamus proper: rule 1.440 imposes a clear duty, the court failed to perform it, and an appeal after an improper trial would be an inadequate remedy |
| Whether Gawker waived objection by earlier participation or failure to timely object | Bollea pointed to cases where parties participated at trial without objection and were deemed to have waived rule 1.440 claims | Gawker showed it continuously objected since fall 2014 and preserved the issue | Court found no waiver; continuous objections preserved Gawker's right and waiver cases were distinguishable (and some were unpublished) |
Key Cases Cited
- Teelucksingh v. Teelucksingh, 21 So. 3d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (emphasizing strict compliance with rule 1.440)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Anderson, 90 So. 3d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (mandamus used to enforce timing requirements of rule 1.440)
- Pleus v. Crist, 14 So. 3d 941 (Fla. 2009) (standards for mandamus relief: clear duty, failure to perform, and lack of adequate remedy)
- Goldschmidt v. Holman, 571 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1990) (preservation requirement for appellate review of trial error)
- Globe Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co., 539 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (setting trial without an at-issue notice violated essential requirements of law)
- Sundale, Ltd. v. Williams Paving Co., 913 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (held certiorari unavailable absent showing appeal inadequate; criticized by this opinion)