Florida Judicial Administration Rule 2.550
RULE 2.550. CALENDAR CONFLICTS
(a) Guidelines. In resolving calendar conflicts between the
state courts of Florida or between a state court and a federal court
in Florida, the following guidelines must be considered:
(1) Any case priority status established by statute, rule
of procedure, case law, or otherwise must be evaluated to determine
the effect that resolving a calendar conflict might have on the
priority case or cases.
(2) Juvenile dependency and termination of parental
rights cases are generally to be given preference over other cases,
except for speedy trial and capital cases.
(3) Criminal cases are generally to be given preference
over civil cases.
(4) Jury trials are generally to be given preference over
non-jury trials.
(5) Appellate arguments, hearings, and conferences are
generally to be given preference over trial court proceedings.
(6) The case in which the trial date has been first set
generally should take precedence.
(b) Additional Circumstances. Factors such as cost,
numbers of witnesses and attorneys involved, travel, length of trial,
age of case, and other relevant matters may warrant deviation from
these case guidelines.
(c) Notice and Agreement; Resolution by Judges. When
an attorney is scheduled to appear in 2 courts at the same time and
cannot arrange for other counsel to represent the clients’ interests,
the attorney must give prompt written notice of the conflict to
opposing counsel or self-represented party, the clerk of each court,
and the presiding judge of each case, if known. If the presiding
judge of the case cannot be identified, written notice of the conflict
must be given to the chief judge of the court having jurisdiction over
the case or to the chief judge’s designee. The judges or their
designees must confer and resolve the conflict.
Committee Notes
1996 Adoption. The adoption of this rule was prompted by
the Resolution of the Florida State-Federal Judicial Council
Regarding Calendar Conflicts Between State and Federal Courts,
which states as follows:
WHEREAS, the great volume of cases filed in the state and
federal courts of Florida creates calendar conflicts between the state
and federal courts of Florida which should be resolved in a fair,
efficient and orderly manner to allow for judicial efficiency and
economy; and
WHEREAS, the Florida State-Federal Judicial Council which
represents the Bench and Bar of the State of Florida believes that it
would be beneficial to formally agree upon and publish
recommended procedures and priorities for resolving calendar
conflicts between the state and federal courts of Florida;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
In resolving calendar conflicts between the state and federal
courts of Florida, the following case priorities should be considered:
1. Criminal cases should prevail over civil cases.
2. Jury trials should prevail over non-jury trials.
3. Appellate arguments, hearings, and conferences should
prevail over trials.
4. The case in which the trial date has been first set should
take precedence.
5. Circumstances such as cost, numbers of witnesses and
attorneys involved, travel, length of trial, age of case and other
relevant matters may warrant deviation from this policy. Such
matters are encouraged to be resolved through communication
between the courts involved.
Where an attorney is scheduled to appear in two courts — trial
or appellate, state or federal — at the same time and cannot
arrange for other counsel in his or her firm or in the case to
represent his or her client’s interest, the attorney shall give prompt
written notice to opposing counsel, the clerk of each court, and the
presiding judge of each case, if known, of the conflict. If the
presiding judge of a case cannot be identified, written notice of the
conflict shall be given to the chief judge of the court having
jurisdiction over the case, or to his or her designee. The judges or
their designees shall confer and undertake to avoid the conflict by
agreement among themselves. Absent agreement, conflicts should
be promptly resolved by the judges or their designees in accordance
with the above case priorities.
In jurisdictions where calendar conflicts arise with frequency,
it is recommended that each court involved consider appointing a
calendar conflict coordinator to assist the judges in resolving
calendar conflicts by obtaining information regarding the conflicts
and performing such other ministerial duties as directed by the
judges.
REVISED AND READOPTED at Miami, Florida, this 13th day
of January, 1995
Court Commentary
2002 Court Commentary. As provided in subdivision (c),
when a scheduling conflict involves different courts, the presiding
judges should confer and undertake to agree on a resolution, using
the guidelines provided in this rule.
(a) Guidelines. In resolving calendar conflicts between the
state courts of Florida or between a state court and a federal court
in Florida, the following guidelines must be considered:
(1) Any case priority status established by statute, rule
of procedure, case law, or otherwise must be evaluated to determine
the effect that resolving a calendar conflict might have on the
priority case or cases.
(2) Juvenile dependency and termination of parental
rights cases are generally to be given preference over other cases,
except for speedy trial and capital cases.
(3) Criminal cases are generally to be given preference
over civil cases.
(4) Jury trials are generally to be given preference over
non-jury trials.
(5) Appellate arguments, hearings, and conferences are
generally to be given preference over trial court proceedings.
(6) The case in which the trial date has been first set
generally should take precedence.
(b) Additional Circumstances. Factors such as cost,
numbers of witnesses and attorneys involved, travel, length of trial,
age of case, and other relevant matters may warrant deviation from
these case guidelines.
(c) Notice and Agreement; Resolution by Judges. When
an attorney is scheduled to appear in 2 courts at the same time and
cannot arrange for other counsel to represent the clients’ interests,
the attorney must give prompt written notice of the conflict to
opposing counsel or self-represented party, the clerk of each court,
and the presiding judge of each case, if known. If the presiding
judge of the case cannot be identified, written notice of the conflict
must be given to the chief judge of the court having jurisdiction over
the case or to the chief judge’s designee. The judges or their
designees must confer and resolve the conflict.
Committee Notes
1996 Adoption. The adoption of this rule was prompted by
the Resolution of the Florida State-Federal Judicial Council
Regarding Calendar Conflicts Between State and Federal Courts,
which states as follows:
WHEREAS, the great volume of cases filed in the state and
federal courts of Florida creates calendar conflicts between the state
and federal courts of Florida which should be resolved in a fair,
efficient and orderly manner to allow for judicial efficiency and
economy; and
WHEREAS, the Florida State-Federal Judicial Council which
represents the Bench and Bar of the State of Florida believes that it
would be beneficial to formally agree upon and publish
recommended procedures and priorities for resolving calendar
conflicts between the state and federal courts of Florida;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
In resolving calendar conflicts between the state and federal
courts of Florida, the following case priorities should be considered:
1. Criminal cases should prevail over civil cases.
2. Jury trials should prevail over non-jury trials.
3. Appellate arguments, hearings, and conferences should
prevail over trials.
4. The case in which the trial date has been first set should
take precedence.
5. Circumstances such as cost, numbers of witnesses and
attorneys involved, travel, length of trial, age of case and other
relevant matters may warrant deviation from this policy. Such
matters are encouraged to be resolved through communication
between the courts involved.
Where an attorney is scheduled to appear in two courts — trial
or appellate, state or federal — at the same time and cannot
arrange for other counsel in his or her firm or in the case to
represent his or her client’s interest, the attorney shall give prompt
written notice to opposing counsel, the clerk of each court, and the
presiding judge of each case, if known, of the conflict. If the
presiding judge of a case cannot be identified, written notice of the
conflict shall be given to the chief judge of the court having
jurisdiction over the case, or to his or her designee. The judges or
their designees shall confer and undertake to avoid the conflict by
agreement among themselves. Absent agreement, conflicts should
be promptly resolved by the judges or their designees in accordance
with the above case priorities.
In jurisdictions where calendar conflicts arise with frequency,
it is recommended that each court involved consider appointing a
calendar conflict coordinator to assist the judges in resolving
calendar conflicts by obtaining information regarding the conflicts
and performing such other ministerial duties as directed by the
judges.
REVISED AND READOPTED at Miami, Florida, this 13th day
of January, 1995
Court Commentary
2002 Court Commentary. As provided in subdivision (c),
when a scheduling conflict involves different courts, the presiding
judges should confer and undertake to agree on a resolution, using
the guidelines provided in this rule.