What limits the latest service of a Florida settlement proposal?

Read the actual trial setting and identify the first day of the docket on which this case is set.

Use the earlier established anchor rather than the later anticipated actual trial day.

Compare the recipient’s ninety-day earliest threshold and all actual court directions before serving.

1. Read the actual trial setting and identify the first day of the docket on which this case is set.
2. Rule 1.090(a) incorporates Rule 2.514(a). Paragraph (a)(5) determines counting direction for a period measured before an event. Preserve the forty-five-day lead time against the earlier actual court anchor. Establish applicable closed-day treatment and the full window separately; this guide does not roll an isolated backward result forward or invent a later service date.
3. Check the observed statutory holidays, actual clerk calendar and chief-justice directions.
4. Complete the required act with the proper court or recipient.

Apply the observed New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Jr. birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans’ Day, Thanksgiving Day, Friday after Thanksgiving and Christmas Day holidays. Section 110.117 observes Saturday holidays on the preceding Friday and Sunday holidays on the following Monday. Rule 2.514 also includes clerk-observed holidays and days designated by the chief justice or chief judge. An ineligible final day moves in the counting direction. The bundled Florida calendar covers 2026 through 2028. Verify additional closures and chief-justice extensions separately.

Two possible court anchors and a separate recipient-specific earliest threshold require comparison. The single backward preset does not establish the actual permissible service window or automatically resolve a closed-day endpoint.

Both limits must permit the actual service date

Rule 1.442(b) permits a proposal to a defendant no earlier than ninety days after process service on that defendant. A proposal to a plaintiff uses ninety days after commencement. Neither may be served later than forty-five days before the earlier trial date or first docket day. An isolated earliest or latest threshold does not establish a valid service window.

The earlier anchor controls

Rule 1.442(b) expressly compares the trial date with the first day of the docket on which the case is set. A scheduled later trial day does not eliminate an earlier docket anchor. Preserve both actual court records.

A changed setting requires another complete comparison

Read the operative trial and docket setting before relying on a prior window. This guide does not establish the effect of a changed setting on an earlier proposal or infer a new permissible window without the actual records.

A date does not establish a valid proposal

Rule 1.442(c) requires a written proposal identifying the applicable Florida law, each party, the total amount, the prescribed damages scope, punitive amount, fee treatment and service certificate. Nonmonetary terms are excluded except dismissal of all claims with prejudice and other terms permitted by statute. Joint proposals ordinarily allocate each party’s amount and terms. The stated solely vicarious or derivative liability exception requires its actual facts. Section 768.79(6) separately permits a property insurer in a breach-of-contract action to make a joint offer conditioned on mutual acceptance by all joint offerees. Establish that specific statutory branch instead of assuming every joint proposal permits such a condition.

Rejection does not establish fee entitlement

Rule 1.442(g) requires a sanctions motion served under Rule 1.525. Paragraph (h) addresses applicable-law entitlement, good faith and reasonableness. The amount, judgment comparison, applicable statute and actual court decision require separate review. Mediation has no effect on proposal service or acceptance dates under paragraph (j).

• This page does not establish an enforceable settlement, proper allocation, fee entitlement, class approval or an actual permissible proposal-service window.
• Check the applicable Florida law, actual proposal, recipients, delivery, court dates and any withdrawal.

• Read the actual trial setting and identify the first day of the docket on which this case is set.
• Use the earlier established anchor rather than the later anticipated actual trial day.
• Compare the recipient’s ninety-day earliest threshold and all actual court directions before serving.
• Rule 1.442(b) permits a proposal to a defendant no earlier than ninety days after process service on that defendant. A proposal to a plaintiff uses ninety days after commencement. Neither may be served later than forty-five days before the earlier trial date or first docket day. An isolated earliest or latest threshold does not establish a valid service window.
• Rule 1.442(b) expressly compares the trial date with the first day of the docket on which the case is set. A scheduled later trial day does not eliminate an earlier docket anchor. Preserve both actual court records.
• Read the operative trial and docket setting before relying on a prior window. This guide does not establish the effect of a changed setting on an earlier proposal or infer a new permissible window without the actual records.
• Rule 1.442(c) requires a written proposal identifying the applicable Florida law, each party, the total amount, the prescribed damages scope, punitive amount, fee treatment and service certificate. Nonmonetary terms are excluded except dismissal of all claims with prejudice and other terms permitted by statute. Joint proposals ordinarily allocate each party’s amount and terms. The stated solely vicarious or derivative liability exception requires its actual facts. Section 768.79(6) separately permits a property insurer in a breach-of-contract action to make a joint offer conditioned on mutual acceptance by all joint offerees. Establish that specific statutory branch instead of assuming every joint proposal permits such a condition.
• Rule 1.442(g) requires a sanctions motion served under Rule 1.525. Paragraph (h) addresses applicable-law entitlement, good faith and reasonableness. The amount, judgment comparison, applicable statute and actual court decision require separate review. Mediation has no effect on proposal service or acceptance dates under paragraph (j).
• Rule 1.442(d) requires service on the parties to whom the proposal is made and prohibits court filing unless necessary to enforce the rule. Rule 2.516 controls the prescribed service method and certificate. Preserve the actual proposal, each recipient and timely service evidence. Sending a draft to counsel, filing alone or participating in mediation does not establish valid proposal service.