Landmark Case and Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure mean a New Summary Judgment Standard in Florida:

Will adopting the Federal Standard Benefit the Defense?

One of the most important distinctions between Florida and Federal judicial systems is the treatment of summary judgment motions. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510©’s wording of the standard is “no genuine issue of material fact.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(A) permits a summary judgment when there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact.” At first glance, they may not seem very different, however, this small difference in test has created a vortex between the two judicial systems where the identical summary judgment may be winnable in federal court but destined for defeat in state court. More precisely, in Florida state court, summary judgment is denied if there is the mere possibility or even the slightest doubt that a genuine issue of material fact exists. In Federal court, a judge can grant a motion for summary judgment “where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” First National Bank of Arizona v. Cities Srv. Co., 391 U.S. 253,289 (1968). Defense attorneys are for this change as they recognize adopting the Federal standard as a way to eliminate cases that have scarce evidence.

In last year’s case Wilsonart, LLC v. Lopez, SC19-1336, 2019 WL 5188546 (Fla. Oct. 15, 2019), the Florida Supreme Court indicated that the summary judgment standard set forth in a series of three Celotex cases a/k/a/ the “Celotex Trilogy.” The court ordered briefs from the parties on the following issue:

“Should Florida adopt the summary judgment standard articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986), and Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986)? If so, must Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 be amended to reflect any change in the summary judgment standard?”

On December 31, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court issued its answer to this question in its opinion from Wilsonart, LLC v. Lopez, SC19-1336, 2020 WL 7778226 (Fla. December 31.2020) and In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, No. SC20-1490, ––– So.3d ––––, 2020 WL 7778179 (Fla. Dec. 31, 2020):

“For the reasons we explain in In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, No. SC20-1490, ––– So.3d ––––, 2020 WL 7778179 (Fla. Dec. 31, 2020), which issues today with this opinion, we are persuaded that Florida should adopt the federal summary judgment standard. But the right way to enact that change is through a prospective rule amendment. We cannot say that the jurisprudence underlying Florida’s existing summary judgment standard is clearly erroneous, so we will not recede from that jurisprudence or “reinterpret” it here. See State v. Poole, 297 So. 3d 487, 507 (Fla. 2020).”

(Link to Amendment to FRCP: https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/698378/opinion/sc20-1490.pdf )

The court finds Florida and federal summary judgment jurisprudence have not been aligned. The court stated that there are three major differences that have motivated them to render its decision to align Florida’s summary judgment standard with that of the federal courts and of the majority of states that have already adopted the federal standard:

1) Florida courts have repeatedly declined to recognize the similarities between the standard for directed verdict and the one for summary judgment, whereas the federal courts have held that the summary judgment standard mirrors the directed verdict standard. Thomas Logue & Javier Alberto Soto, Florida Should Adopt the Celotex Standard for Summary Judgment, 76 Fla. Bar J. Feb2002, at 20, 22; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct 2505, 91 L.ED. 2d 202 (1986).

2) Florida courts have put the burden on the moving party to conclusively disprove the theory of the moving party’s theory of the case in order to eliminate any issue of fact, whereas federal courts have held that the moving party’s burden may be discharged by showing that there is an absence of evidence to support the case of the non-moving party. Therefore, the moving party’s burden varies depending on who bears the burden of proof at trial. Hall v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1966).

3) Florida courts have adopted an expansive understanding of what constitutes a “genuine issue of material fact”, with the “slightest doubt” sufficient to precluded summary judgment, whereas the federal courts’ inquiry focuses on whether the evidence could lead a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. 1.510, No. SC20-1490, ––– So.3d ––––, 2020 WL 7778179 (Fla. Dec. 31, 2020); Anderson at 248.

The Florida Supreme Court finds the reasoning underlying the federal summary judgment standard compelling: “One of the principal purposes of the summary judgment rule is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses, and we think it should be interpreted in a way that allows it to accomplish this purpose.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 323-324, 106 S.Ct 2548, 91 L.Ed 2d 265 (1986).

The court ultimately concludes that the federal standard for summary judgment and the purpose of the rules of civil procedure is “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.010. The court strongly agrees with the U.S. Supreme Court that the summary judgment is not a disfavored procedural shortcut but a means to dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses. Emphasis was put on the fact that the “bedrock principle that summary judgment is not to be a substitute for the trial of disputed facts and issues.” Celotex at 327; Also See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

In recent years, the Florida Supreme Court has demonstrated its willingness to harmonize Federal Rules in adopting the Daubert rule of evidence. Both Daubert and now the new Florida rule of summary judgment represent significant changes in Florida practice.

In summary, generally, this is a positive development for defendants in that plaintiffs can no longer survive summary judgment, with very rare exceptions and the new rule should remove a significant amount of pressure on defendants to settle claims to avoid the risk and expense of a jury trial. In other words, instead of the current Florida rule which plaintiffs most often win and defendants lose, adopting the Federal rule, as most states have done, gives defendants a much more level playing field and significant chance of winning when filing a motion for summary judgment.

The standard will become effective on May 1, 2021 to allow for an opportunity for public comments.