Adoption By the Numbers: Two Years Later, How Should the Florida Courts Navigate the "Not-So-New" Florida Summary Judgment Rule?

• Author: Clement, Anitra Raiford

On December 31, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, which regulates summary judgment motions. (1) With the change, the Florida rule now models itself after the federal rule like most other states. (2) This amendment has been effective since May 1, 2021. Yet, an analysis of a random sample of Florida cases reveals that 21% of the courts were neither applying it correctly nor applying it at all (see Figure 1).

Before the amendment, Florida's summary judgment standard placed a near impossible burden on the movant. The original text provided that "[a] party moving for summary judgment bears 'the burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.'" (3) Courts interpreted this rule plainly to mean that "[i]f the record reflects the existence of any genuine issue of material fact, or the possibility of any issue, or if the record raises even the slightest doubt that an issue might exist, summary judgment is improper." (4) This high bar made it difficult, and perhaps almost impossible, for a movant to prevail through dispositive motion practice alone.

Now, the rule tracks the federal standard and states, "[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." (5) This change allows a movant to show that the non-moving party cannot prove its claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

The Florida Supreme Court provided that the former Florida rule and federal summary judgment rule serves the same overall purpose, "to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action." (6) The court's opinion articulates three major differences that prompted alignment with the federal courts and supermajority states.

First, Florida courts previously declined to recognize the similarity between a motion for directed verdict and a motion for summary judgment. Conversely, the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes that the summary judgment standard mirrors the directed verdict standard, with the difference lying in the procedural process only.

Second, Florida courts previously placed the burden on the movant, "[to conclusively] disprove the non-moving party's theory of the case in order to eliminate any issue of fact." (7) By contrast federal courts hold that the movant's burden varies depending on who bears the burden of persuasion at trial. (8)

Third, prior to Rule 1.510's amendment, the Florida Supreme Court held that "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." (9) Contrast commentary by the U.S. Supreme Court on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 noting "[t]hat the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact... . [T]he substantive law will identify which facts are material." (10)

In amending Rule 1.510, the Florida Supreme Court highlighted that (r)'[i]t would also be difficult to overstate how important the [Celotex] trilogy remains to summary-judgment practice today." (11) Thus, it concluded the adaptation of the federal rule as outlined in the Celotex trilogy better agrees with the text and purpose of Rule 1.510. (12) The new rule adds the following sentence to the text of the existing Rule 1.510(a): "The summary judgment standard provided for this rule shall be construed and applied in accordance with the federal summary judgment standard." Further, the court's comment to the rule states that the "'federal summary judgment...