In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510
| Decision Date | 29 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. SC20-1490,SC20-1490 |
| Citation | 317 So.3d 72 (Mem) |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.510. |
Evelyn Fletcher Davis on behalf of Hawkins Parnell & Young LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Jennifer Marie Voss, Tampa, Florida, and Daniel B. Rogers on behalf of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Miami, Florida; Patrick F. Clark of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Atlanta, Georgia; Charles E. Bailes III on behalf of ABC Fine Wine & Spirits, Orlando, Florida; Frank Cruz-Alvarez of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP on behalf of Associated Industries of Florida, Florida Insurance Council, Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel, NFIB Small Business Legal Center, Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., American Property Casualty Insurance Association, Washington Legal Foundation, AdvaMed--Advanced Medical Technology Association, Florida Defense Lawyers Association, DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar, International Association of Defense Counsel, Association of Defense Trial Attorneys, American Tort Reform Association, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., Miami, Florida; Derek J. Angell on behalf of Bell & Roper, P.A., Orlando, Florida; Charles S. Caulkins on behalf of Fisher & Phillips LLP, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Matthew Penland on behalf of Cypress Truck Lines, Jacksonville, Florida; Dinah Stein and Mark Hicks of Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein, P.A., on behalf of The Doctors Company and the Florida Medical Association, Miami, Florida; Rafael E. Martinez, Thomas Earle Dukes III, Mary Jaye Hall, and Philip F. Moring on behalf of McEwan, Martinez, Dukes & Hall, P.A., Orlando, Florida; Scott A. Cole on behalf of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, Florida; Kenneth S. Armstrong on behalf of Florida Trucking Association, Tallahassee, Florida; Scott B. Albee on behalf of Fulmer, LeRoy & Albee, PLLC, St. Petersburg, Florida; Peter R. Goldman of Nelson Mullins Broad and Cassel, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; John W. Weihmuller and Matthew J. Lavisky on behalf of Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, Tampa, Florida; Jimmy Davis on behalf of Davis Express, Starke, Florida; Philip Fulmer on behalf of Carroll Fulmer Logistics Corporation, Groveland, Florida; Timothy J. Ferguson and Eduardo J. Medina on behalf of Foley & Mansfield, P.L.L.P., Miami, Florida; Karina Bodnieks and Lars O. Bodnieks of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Miami, Florida; Daniel J. Santaniello and Daniel S. Weinger on behalf of Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo & Cohen, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Dr. Frank Gable, Estero, Florida; Jason M. Hand on behalf of Florida Senior Living Association, Tallahassee, Florida; Kimberly K. Berman, Ryan D. Burns, Alan C. Nash, and Michael A. Packer, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Bradley P. Blystone and Thomas F. Brown, Orlando, Florida, Michael Archibald and James Patrick Hanratty on behalf of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Jacksonville, Florida; Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Amit Agarwal, Solicitor General, James H. Percival, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, and Jason H. Hilborn, Assistant Solicitor General, on behalf of the State of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida; Austin Carr of Parafinczuk Wolf, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Carol M. Bishop and Rhonda B. Boggess on behalf of Marks Gray, P.A., Jacksonville, Florida; Daniel A. Rock on behalf of Bowman and Brooke LLP, Miami, Florida; Samuel A. Danon, Gustavo J. Membiela, and Jamie Zysk Isani on behalf of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Miami, Florida; Gabrielle R. Mercadante, Eugene P. Murphy, Audrey Elizabeth Dias, and Stephanie N. Williams of Robinson & Cole, Miami, Florida; James C. Pointdexter on behalf of National Employment Lawyers Association - Florida Chapter, Jacksonville, Florida; Eric B. Jontz of Fishback Dominick, Winter Park, Florida; Jennifer Miller of Hamilton, Miller & Birthisel, LLP, Miami, Florida; Amanda Bowen on behalf of Manufacturers Association of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida; Michael R. D'Lugo and Richards H. Ford of Wicker, Smith, O'Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A., Orlando, Florida; Kansas R. Gooden on behalf of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., Miami, Florida; Jennifer L. Hall on behalf of American Trucking Associations, Arlington, Virginia; Peter W. Zinober on behalf of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Tampa, Florida; William Roppolo, Jodi Avila, and Benjamin Davis on behalf of Baker & McKenzie, LLP, Miami, Florida; David Armellini on behalf of Armellini Express Lines Inc, Palm City, Florida; Edward G. Guedes of Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, P.L., on behalf of Publix Super Markets, Inc., Coral Gables, Florida; Sylvia H. Walbolt, Douglas J. Chumbley, Jeffrey A. Cohen, and Thomas J. Meeks of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Miami, Florida; Wendy F. Lumish of Bowman and Brooke LLP, Miami, Florida, and Quentin F. Urquhart Jr., on behalf of Lawyers for Civil Justice, Arlington, Virginia; Ceci Culpepper Berman, Chair, Civil Procedure Rules Committee, Tampa, Florida, Joshua E. Doyle, Executive Director, and Mikalla Andies Davis, Bar Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida; Jonathan Lee Blackmore on behalf of GrayRobinson, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Florida; William W. Large on behalf of Florida Justice Reform Institute, Tallahassee, Florida; William T. Cotterall on behalf of Florida Justice Association, Tallahassee, Florida; Troy A. Fuhrman on behalf of Hill Ward Henderson, Tampa, Florida, and Brian Charles Lea on behalf of Jones Day, Atlanta, Georgia; Anne-Marie Estevez of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP on behalf of Retail Litigation Center, Inc., Miami, Florida; George N. Meros Jr. of Shutts & Bowen, Tallahassee, Florida; Reed W Grimm on behalf of Taylor, Day, Grimm & Boyd, Jacksonville, Florida; Joseph S. Van de Bogart of Van de Bogart Law, P.A., and James Burton Murphy, Jr. of James B. Murphy Jr. Mediations on behalf of the Business Law Section of The Florida Bar, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Frederick Charles Morello on behalf of Frederick C. Morello, P.A., Daytona Beach, Florida; Mark Wilson on behalf of Florida Chamber of Commerce Litigation and Regulatory Reform Center and Harold Kim on behalf of U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, Washington, District of Columbia; and Scott M. Edson, Washington, District of Columbia, William L. Durham II and Val Leppert of King & Spalding LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, Responding with comments.
This Court recently amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 to "align Florida's summary judgment standard with that of the federal courts and of the supermajority of states that have already adopted the federal summary judgment standard." In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Pro. 1.510 , 309 So. 3d 192, 192 (Fla. 2020). We gave the amended rule a prospective effective date of May 1, 2021. Having received comments and heard oral argument, we now further amend rule 1.510.1
We are persuaded that the best way for Florida to adopt the federal summary judgment standard is to adopt the text of the federal summary judgment rule itself. Accordingly, with some exceptions for timing-related issues, the amendments we adopt today will largely replace the text of existing rule 1.510 with the text of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The effective date of these amendments remains May 1, 2021.
Rather than make substantial changes to the text of rule 1.510, our decision of December 31, 2020, adopted the federal summary judgment standard by adding this sentence to the text of existing rule 1.510(c) : "The summary judgment standard provided for in this rule shall be construed and applied in accordance with the federal summary judgment standard articulated in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ; and Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)." In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Pro. 1.510 , 309 So. 3d at 196. These cases are commonly referred to as the Celotex trilogy.
In anticipation of the amendment's effective date, we sought public comment and specifically invited responses to the following questions: whether any ancillary changes were necessary to effectively implement the amendment; whether specific provisions of federal rule 56 should be added to rule 1.510 ; and indeed whether rule 1.510 should be replaced in its entirety with the text of federal rule 56. Id. at 194.
Nearly all the commenters supported the Court's decision to adopt the federal summary judgment standard. However, even the supportive comments reflected a consensus that additional changes to rule 1.510 are necessary. Specifically, there was widespread agreement that the Court should amend rule 1.510 to include the substance of federal rule 56(c), which tells parties how to present their assertions about whether material facts are in dispute. The commenters also agreed that, while Florida should still tie filing deadlines to a hearing date, the Court should amend rule 1.510 ’s timing-related provisions to allow for more deliberative consideration of summary judgment motions.
Beyond those areas of agreement, the commenters were divided over how far the Court should go toward incorporating text from federal rule 56. A majority of the commenters asked that we keep to a minimum any other changes to rule 1.510. But a sizeable minority recommended that the Court adopt federal rule 56 wholesale.2
For several reasons, we are persuaded that the best way forward is to largely adopt the text of federal rule 56 as a replacement for rule 1.510. Doing so makes it more likely that Florida's adoption of the federal summary judgment standard will take root. Textual overlap between the Florida and federal rules will provide greater certainty and eliminate unproductive speculation and litigation over differences between those rules. And Florida litigants and judges will get the full benefit of the large...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Rehab. & Orthopedic Servs., LLC
...judgment motion decided on or after that date, including cases where a motion is pending. In re Amendments to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510, 317 So.3d 72 (Fla. 2021). However, where a motion has already been decided under the pre-amendment rule, review is under the pre-amendment rule. Cf. id. at 78......
-
Pozanco v. FJB 6501, Inc.
...U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986), with respect to judgments rendered after May 1, 2021. See In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Pro. 1.510, 317 So.3d 72 (Fla. 2021) ; In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Pro. 1.510, 309 So. 3d 192, 195 (Fla. 2020). However, as the judgment at is......
-
Shamieh v. HCB Fin. Corp.
... ... under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 ... The Shamiehs filed a civil case ... in Louisiana state court against ... 2d DCA ... 1985)). Thus, the general rule is that when one co-obligor ... "pays more ... Court's amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil ... Procedure ... ...
-
Greeley v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP
...See In re Amends. to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510 , 309 So. 3d 192 (Fla. 2020) ; see also In re Amends. to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510 , 317 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 2021). "However, the rule amendment does not apply to this case because the rule amendment became effective on May 1, 2021, and is prospective." Ad......
-
Applying New Fla. Settlement Proposal Rule To Pending Cases
...to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.44 2, 2022 WL 1679398, at *1, with In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 , 317 So. 3d 72, 77–78 (Fla. 2021). [4] Natkow v. Natkow, 696 So. 2d 315, 317 (Fla. 1997) (citing Mend ez-Perez v. Perez-Perez, 656 So. 2d 458, 460 (Fla. 1995); ......
-
Using Florida’s Amended Summary Judgment Standard in Litigation
...management and discovery plans. [1] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(a) (emphasis added). [2] Id. [3] In re Amends. to Fla. Rule Civ. Proc. 1.510, 317 So. 3d 72, 77 (Fla. 2021) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986)). [4] Id. (quoting Thomas Logue & Javier Alberto Soto, ......
-
Chapter 12-2 The Summary Judgment Rule Amendment Effective May 1, 2021
...re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Civil Proc. 1.510, 309 So. 3d 192, 192 (Fla. 2020).[9] In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Civil Proc. 1.510, 317 So. 3d 72, 75 (Fla. 2021).[10] See, e.g., Aloff v. Neff-Harmon, Inc., 463 So. 2d 291, 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) ("A summary judgment is appropriate only......
-
Adoption By the Numbers: Two Years Later, How Should the Florida Courts Navigate the "Not-So-New" Florida Summary Judgment Rule?
...Summary Judgment, 2 FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULES AND COMMENTARY (2021). (12) In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Pro. 1.510, 317 So. 3d 72, 74 (Fla. (13) Id. at 75 (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). (14) Currently, the appellate courts have begun hearing matters on appeal based ......