TULSI v. RAMLAGAN (2025)

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

Decided: May 21, 2025

Nicole Deese Newlon of Johnson, Newlon & DeCort, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Allison M. Perry of Florida Appeals, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

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 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.

ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge.

KHOUZAM and MOE, JJ., Concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network