New Summary Judgment Standard in Florida--More Like the Feds

As has been expected as a result of the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion in December 2020 advising its intent to change the summary judgment rule 1.510, the Court has now amended that rule as of May 1, 2021 in IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.510, 46 Fla. L. Weekly S95 (Fla. April 29, 2021). The highlights include the following:

• The Florida Supreme Court actually replaced the text of Rule 1.510 with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 with a few “tweaks.”

• 1.510(a) now says that the rule will be construed “in accordance with the federal standard” meaning we need to cite to federal cases for a while.

• Rule 1.510 makes the summary judgment standard like the directed verdict standard: Both focus on “whether evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury.” Both standards make the burden for showing a genuine issue of fact to be equal with the burden of proof at trial.

• To obtain summary judgment, it is not necessary for the non-movant to “disprove” the other side’s case (if the non-moving party has to prove “x” to win at trial, then the party moving for summary judgment can either (a) produce evidence to show that “x” is not so, or (b) that the non-movant lacks the evidence to prove “x”.

• The test for whether a genuine issue of fact exists asks the trial judge to decide whether “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”

• The trial judge must articulate the reasons on the record for granting or denying a motion for summary judgment (the Federal rule actually makes it permissive, while 1.510(a) makes it mandatory).

• Summary judgment hearings must be set forty (40) days before the hearing (not 20 like the old rule), and responses must be issued within twenty (20) days, not five days, or two days like the old days…

Fla Supreme Court Rejects Daubert Evidence Standard

The Florida Supreme Court rejected a 2013 law intended to bring the state’s expert witness standard in line with most others states—this is otherwise known as the Daubert standard. The change in standard was backed by the Republican-controlled Legislature and business groups but opposed by plaintiffs’ attorneys. Supporters of the Daubert standard maintain switching to it would keep “junk science” out of court cases, while opponents argue a change in standard would make cases more expensive and time-consuming.

Writing for the majority, Justice Peggy Quince noted Florida’s adherence to the Frye standard set by the 1923 U.S. Supreme Court decision and the Legislature’s attempt to impose the Daubert standard followed in federal courts and 41 states. Quince noted that “Frye relies on the scientific community to determine reliability whereas Daubert relies on the scientific savvy of trial judges to determine the significance of the methodology used.” Justices Barbara Pariente, R. Fred Lewis and Jorge Labarga concurred.

Justice Quince further noted that the Florida Legislature has authority over substantive law while the Court is responsible for procedural standards, and the question of standards was one for the Court alone to decide under the separation of powers, Quince said in the 39-page opinion. This  4-3 decision overturned a ruling by the Fourth District Court of Appeal and ordered reinstatement of an $8 million verdict for Richard DeLisle, who blamed his mesothelioma on exposure to asbestos in cigarette filters and in workplaces.

If you are interested in obtaining a copy of this decision or wish to contact us to discuss this case further, you may contact us at blog@miamimaritimelaw.co.

Justice Peggy Quince, author of the opinion

Picture provided by florida-issues.blogspot.com

Pretrial Stipulation is Trial Blueprint in Florida State Court

September 14, 2015

In Palm Beach Polo Holdings v. Broward Marine, 40 Fla. Law Weekly D1932 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug. 19, 2015), the issue of whether the underlying claim was barred by the statute of limitations was memorialized in the pretrial stipulation entered between the parties. By definition and policy, this should have been considered a matter officially at issue in dispute during the trial. However, the trial court concluded that because the relevant statute was not framed in the preliminary instructions to the jury and because the appellants did not argue it in their opening statement, the defense was not properly raised and was waived.

The Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeals disagreed. It took the opportunity to remind judges and litigators that the document upon which all parties can always rely on is the Pretrial Stipulation. The appellate court observed that any previous disputes or contentious pretrial issues become mostly irrelevant once the parties prepare and stipulate to the final agreed upon "executive summary” as to what the impending trial will be about and the specific issues that remain on the table. As noted by the court, the Pretrial Stipulation is one of the most “coveted and effective pretrial devices” enjoyed by the trial court and all the parties. The court further noted how the Pretrial Stipulation is a “powerful blueprint” that fully enables a well-run and fair trial. It also stated that the Pretrial Stipulation prescribing issues on which the case is to be tried are binding upon the parties and the court and should be strictly enforced.

Everyone connected with the trial, from the witnesses to well-prepared and efficient lawyers, benefit from a mandated and duly enforced Pretrial Stipulation. The appellate court then rejected the argument that because the statute of limitations issue was not in the preliminary instructions to the jury or referenced in the opening statement, that it was of no consequence.

While a seemingly simple decision, Palm Beach  Polo Holdings is an important one. In this day and age of "gotcha" litigation, parties are increasingly looking for ways to suggest that the other side waived arguments before the court. The Pretrial Stipulation is the document that sets the stage on the issues to be litigated before the trial court.

If you are interested in receiving a copy of this decision or otherwise reaching me, you may do so by writing to me at via this blog or at lawofficesofmov@gmail.com.