PERSONAL INJURY CORNER
Further Amendment to Summary Judgment Rule
TED BABBITT
If you have been following these articles , you know that the Supreme Court in December of last year adopted the Federal Summary Judgment Standard contained in Federal Rule 56 in civil cases . The Court made the effective date May 1 , 2021 and provided the opportunity for interested persons to make public comment concerning the proposed change . See in re : Amends to Fla . Rule of Civ . Pro . 1.510 , 309 So . 3d 192 ( Fla . 2020 ).
Based on the comments made to that change the Supreme Court has now adopted wholesale Federal Rule 56 , adding some time changes and the following sentence , “ The Summary Judgment Standard provided for this rule shall be construed and applied in accordance with the Federal Summary Judgment Standard .”
The latest change is in re : Amendments to Fla . Rule of Civ . Pro . 1.510 , 317 So . 3d 72 ( Fla . 2021 ). After May 1 , 2021 the Florida Summary Judgement Standard must be construed in accordance with the Celotex Trilogy being Celotex Corp . v . Catrett , 477 U . S . 317 ( 1986 ); Anderson v . Liberty Lobby Inc ., 477 U . S . 242 ( 1986 ) and Matsushita Elec . Inc . Co . v . Zenith Radio Corp ., 475 U . S . 574 ( 1986 ). However the court specifically holds that federal opinions are not only guided by the Celotex Trilogy but by the overall body of case law interpreting Federal Rule 56 .
The Supreme Court makes it clear that embracing the Celotex Trilogy means abandoning the Florida Law which has previously interpreted the Summary Judgment Rule in this state . Rather than the old standard in which Florida Courts were hamstrung by the concept that the existence of any competent evidence foreclosed summary judgement the Court made it clear the standard in a summary judgment is virtually identical to the standard in a motion for directed verdict . The Court make three things clear . First , based upon Anderson supra .
“ The substantive evidentiary burden of proof that the respective parties must meet at trial is the only touchstone that accurately measures whether a genuine issue of material fact exists to be tried .”
Second , the court makes it absolutely clear that a moving party for summary judgement that does not bear the burden of proof at trial can obtain summary judgment without in any way disproving the non-movants case citing Wease v . Ocwen Loan Servicing Company , LLC . 915 F . 3rd 987 ( 5th Cir . 2019 ) “ A movant for summary judgment need not set forth evidence when the non-movant bears the burden of persuasion at trial ."
Third … those applying new Rule 1.510 must recognize that the correct test for the existence of a genuine factual dispute is whether “ the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party .” Anderson supra . at 248 …
“ Under our new rule ‘ when opposing parties tell two different stories , one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record , so that no reasonable jury could believe it , a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment ( citing cases ) in Florida it will no longer be plausible to maintain ‘ the existence of any competent evidence creating an issue of fact , however credible or incredible , substantial or trivial , stops the inquiry and precludes summary judgment so long as the “ slightest doubt ” is raised .
The Supreme Court makes it clear that where the non-movant has the ultimate burden of proof at trial , the requirements imposed on the moving party in a summary judgment hearing are not honorous , so long as the non-movant has been afforded adequate time for discovery .
This rule is obviously a sea of change for Florida courts . The tables have turned in Florida and it is the non-movant in a motion for summary judgment that must present adequate evidence to support it ’ s claim or defense , assuming the nonmovant has the burden of proof at trial , which in most cases relates to the plaintiff rather than the defendant .
The Supreme Court retains some aspects of Florida Rule 1.510 by tying the time within which to file the motion and respond to the motion to the hearing date so that a motion must be filed at least 40 days before the hearing and the responses are due no later than 20 days before the hearing . The Court further urges individuals who have had summary judgments in the past denied under the old rule to file again under the new rule .
The Florida Bar mental health helpline ( 1-833-FL1- WELL ) is a free and confidential service that connects members with professional counselors . Calls are always free . You may be referred for up to three free telehealth counseling sessions per year to help you develop strategies to overcome life ’ s challenges , balance priorities , and better handle both personal and professional matters .
Mental Health and Wellness Center The Bar ’ s Mental Health & Wellness of Florida Lawyers Committee is working to destigmatize mental illness , recommend best practices and remedies , and help bring more balance into members ’ daily professional lives .
PBCBA BAR BULLETIN 13