[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

To sustain a Motion for Summary Judgment under the revised Rule 1.510 effective as of May 1, 2021, the moving party must meet the federal summary judgment standard demonstrating, “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Rule 1.510(a), Fla. R. Civ. P. The Florida Supreme Court stated that the Florida summary judgment standard “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 Amendments to Fla. Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, 309 So. 3d 192, 196 (Fla. 2020).

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The complete explanation for this Standard;
• The standard of review on appeal; and
• The citations to the most court cases citing and/or explaining the Standard.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

To sustain a Motion for Summary Judgment under the revised Rule 1.510 effective as of May 1, 2021, the moving party must meet the federal summary judgment standard demonstrating, “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Rule 1.510(a), Fla. R. Civ. P. The Florida Supreme Court stated that the Florida summary judgment standard “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 Amendments to Fla. Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, 309 So. 3d 192, 196 (Fla. 2020).

To meet this standard, the moving party “bears the initial burden of identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue,” which it may do either through the submission of admissible evidence, showing the undisputed material facts establish that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, or by “pointing to an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S 317, 323, 325 (1986); Hickson Corp. v. Northern Crossarm Co., Inc., 357 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11^th Cir. 2004).

Under the new summary judgment standard, the moving party need not negate Plaintiff’s claims in its entirety or disprove each of Plaintiff’s allegations. “Rather, the Supreme Court has explained that ‘the burden on the moving party may be discharged by “showing”–that is, pointing out to the court–that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.’” In Re Amendments, 309 So. 3d at 193 (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325). A party opposing summary judgment “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Electric Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Even if the opposing party sets forth “evidence” supporting their claim, “if the evidence is merely colorable, Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82, 87 S.Ct. 1425, 18 L.Ed.2d 577 (1967) (per curiam ), or is not significantly probative, Cities Service, supra, at 290, 88 S.Ct., at 1592, summary judgment may be granted.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986). In a case where there is an “absence of evidence in opposition to summary judgment, the party moving for summary judgment need only establish its prima facie case.” Black Point Assets, Inc. v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 220 So. 3d 566, 569 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (citing Butler v. Butler, 870 So.2d 239, 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)).

If the non-moving party bears the burden of proof at trial, and the moving party meets its initial burden as described above, then the burden shifts to the non-moving party to come forward with evidence demonstrating the existence of a disputed issue of material fact. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986); Deal v. Tugalo Gas Co., 991 F.3d 1313, 1325 (11^th Cir. 2021).

The standard of review on appeal of an order for summary judgment is de novo. The Florida Bar v. Cosnow, 797 So. 2d 1255, 1258 (Fla. 2001); Castleberry v. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc., 810 So. 2d 1028, 1029 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Sanders Farm of Ocala, Inc. v. Bay Area Truck Sales, Inc., 235 So. 3d 1010, 1012 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017); Brownlee v. 22nd Ave. Apartments, LLC, 389 So. 3d 695, 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024); De Cruz-Haymer v. Festival Food Mkt., Inc., 117 So. 3d 885, 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Bradenton Group, Inc. v. State, 970 So. 2d 403, 408 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Pickell v. Lennar Homes, LLC, 372 So. 3d 1279, 1281 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023). However, all facts and inferences should be resolved in favor of the party opposing summary judgment. The Florida Bar v. Cosnow, 797 So. 2d 1255, 1258 (Fla. 2001).

---

---

2 Issues And Considerations

(1) “The newly amended language of the rule also makes clear the court shall state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion. (emphasis added). ‘To comply with this requirement, it will not be enough for the court to make a conclusory statement that there is or is not a genuine dispute as to a material fact. The court must state the reasons for its decision with enough specificity to provide useful guidance to the parties and, if necessary, to allow for appellate review.’ In re Amends. to Fla. R. of Civ. P. 1.510, 317 So. 3d at 77. A mere pronouncement the court has granted or denied such a motion fails to comply with the rule as it does not contain reasons for granting or denying the motion.” Jones v. Ervolino, 2022 WL 1560675, *2 (Fla. 3d DCA May 18, 2022).

(2) “Summary judgment should only be granted ‘[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.’” Porras v. United States, 2022 WL 2073006, *3 (M.D. Fla. June 9, 2022) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

(3) “Florida adheres to the principal that ‘piecemeal appeals should not be permitted where claims are legally interrelated and in substance involve the same transaction.’” Ironshore Speciality Ins. Co. v. Conrad & Scherer, LLP, 2022 WL 1559939, *2 (Fla. 4th DCA May 18, 2022) (holding summary judgment could not be granted if any affirmative defenses or counterclaims had not been addressed) (quoting Mendez v. W. Flagler Family Ass’n, 303 So. 2d 1, 5 (Fla. 1974)).

(4) “[A]t the summary judgment phase, ‘the Court cannot consider the relative merits or credibility of the parties’ testimony or witnesses.’ See Hicks v. United States, 20-cv-61241-RAR, 2021 WL 5359724, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2021) (denying summary judgment in FTCA case and noting that ‘cases arising from motor vehicle accidents are rarely ripe for summary judgment’ as ‘drivers involved in an accident seldom recount identical versions of what happened’).” Porras v. United States, 2022 WL 2073006, *4 (M.D. Fla. June 9, 2022) (denying summary judgment even though nonmovant’s only evidence was her own testimony which was contradicted by testimony of movant’s expert witnesses).

(5) “At the summary judgment stage, however, we must view all evidence and factual inferences in favor of the [non-movant].” Guevara v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 920 F.3d 710, 722 (11th Cir. 2019).

(6) “Summary judgment will not lie if the dispute about a material fact is “genuine,” that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 242 (1986).

(7) “A plaintiff who alleges intentional discrimination is able to ‘survive summary judgment if he or she can meet the burden-shifting framework’ set forth in McDonnell Douglas. Mitchell v. Young, 309 So. 3d 280, 284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020). To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must show: (1) he or she belongs to a protected class; (2) he or she was subject to an adverse employment action; (3) he or she was qualified to perform his or her job; and (4) his or her employer treated similarly situated employees outside the protected class more favorably. Washington v. Fla. Dep’t of Revenue, 2022 WL 1101346, *7 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 13, 2022).

(8) When the ultimate burden of proof at trial is on the non-moving party, summary judgment should only be granted where the non-moving party has had a full opportunity to complete discovery. Snook v. Trust Co. of Georgia Bank of Savannah, N.A., 859 F.2d 865, 870 (11^th 1988).

[/MM_Access_Decision]