QIU FENG KE v. GALLAGHER (2021)

In this appeal, Qiu Feng Ke claims the final civil judgment entered against him in a nonjury trial should be reversed because he was denied the opportunity to secure counsel, file an amended answer and affirmative defenses, and participate and be heard in the proceedings. Our review of the record on appeal supports his arguments. Hence, we must reverse the final judgment, vacate the order granting the plaintiff's motion for default, and remand for further proceedings.¹

On remand, the trial court shall (1) allow Ke a reasonable period of time to procure counsel should he decide to do so, (2) allow Ke a reasonable period of time to file an amended answer and affirmative defenses, (3) allow Ke to request a jury trial pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.430, and (4) arrange transportation or provide an alternative method for Ke to participate in all proceedings. See Burch v. City of Lakeland, 891 So. 2d 654, 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (listing relevant factors to consider when deciding whether to transport a prisoner to attend a civil proceeding and observing that “[a]s an alternative to the prisoner's physical presence, a court may permit the prisoner's appearance by telephone”);² EAC USA, Inc. v. Kawa, 805 So. 2d 1, 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (“Public policy favors the liberal amendment of pleadings so that cases may be decided on their merits.”); Baker v. Baker, 403 So. 2d 1111, 1113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (holding that the trial court should have postponed a hearing to afford an incarcerated defendant a reasonable opportunity to obtain representation “and/or to make arrangements to attend the hearing”); Preston v. City of Fort Pierce, 637 So. 2d 326, 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (“Although continuances are within the court's discretion, the exercise of that discretion is also not free form. Typically, discretion is exercised to grant continuances where the party is unable through no contrivance of his own making to attend a civil trial and a delay would not prejudice the opposing party.”).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We have considered Ke's jurisdictional argument and find it to be without merit.

2.   See also Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.530 (providing procedures for parties to attend court proceedings via telephone or other electronic means).

PER CURIAM.

VILLANTI, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and STARGEL, JJ., Concur.