Florida Supreme Court Adopts Federal Summary Judgment Standard

Winning summary judgment in Florida state court has never been easy.  Florida courts often require the movant to prove a negative – to disprove the other side’s case in order to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.  On the final day of 2020, the Florida Supreme Court changed that by adopting the federal summary judgment standard.  In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, No. SC20-1490, 2020 WL 7778179 (Fla. Dec. 31, 2020).

The Court amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c), effective May 1, 2021 (following a 60-day comment period), by (a) replacing the word “issue” with “dispute” in the phrase “genuine ‘issue’ as to any material fact,” to mirror Federal Rule 56(a); and (b) adding, “The summary judgment standard provided for in this rule shall be construed and applied in accordance with the federal summary judgment standard articulated 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).”

Florida’s adoption of the federal summary judgment standard, along with the approval of the Daubert standard for exclusion of expert testimony in May 2019, should bring the experience of litigating in Florida courts somewhat closer to federal litigation practice.  It remains to be seen, though, how the rule change will play out in practice.

Procedural History.  In Lopez v. Wilsonart, LLC, 275 So. 3d 831 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), the Fifth District held that it was “compelled” under “Florida’s current summary judgment standard” to reverse a trial court’s grant of summary judgment, even where there was video footage from a dashboard camera that appeared to refute the plaintiff’s version of events leading to a fatal rear-end crash.  The Fifth District asked the Florida Supreme Court to consider creating an exception to Florida’s summary judgment standard to allow for entry of summary judgment where the movant’s video evidence completely negated or refuted any conflicting evidence, and there was no suggestion that the videotape evidence had been altered or doctored.

The Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and then sua sponte asked for briefing on whether Florida should adopt the summary judgment standard articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Celotex, Anderson, and Matsushita, and, if so, whether Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 must be amended.  Numerous parties filed amicus briefs on these issues.

On December 31, 2020, the Court issued two opinions.  In Wilsonart, LLC v. Lopez, No. SC19-1336, 2020 WL 7778226 (Fla. 2020), the Court declined to adopt a special interpretive rule for cases involving video evidence and instead concluded, the “deeper flaw in Florida’s existing summary judgment standard – specifically, its unreasonable definition of what constitutes a ‘genuine issue’ in need of resolution by a jury,” is better addressed through prospective rule amendment.  The Court approved the Fifth District’s reversal of summary judgment but did so without prejudice to the petitioners’ ability to seek summary judgment under Florida’s new standard once the rule amendment (set forth in the accompanying opinion) takes effect.

What’s Different Between the Florida and Federal Summary Judgment Standards? Although the Florida and federal rules of civil procedure share the same overarching purpose (“to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action”), and the language of the Florida and federal rules setting forth the standard for summary judgment is “materially indistinguishable,¹  Florida and federal courts have diverged in their application of the summary judgment standard.  Florida litigators generally believe it is easier to obtain summary judgment in federal court than in Florida state court.  Why?  The Court points to three primary differences.

First, Florida courts have repeatedly declined to recognize the fundamental similarity between a motion for directed verdict and a motion for summary judgment.  By contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court has concluded that “the inquiry under each is the same: whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.”  Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52.

Second, Florida courts have required the moving party conclusively to disprove the nonmovant’s theory of the case in order to eliminate any issue of fact – that is, to prove a negative.  The U.S. Supreme Court, by contrast, has held that a moving party is not required to negate the opponent’s claim; rather, the moving party only must show that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.  Under the federal standard, summary judgment should be entered against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case.  The extent of the moving party’s burden varies depending on who bears the burden of persuasion at trial.

Third, Florida courts have adopted an “expansive understanding” of what constitutes a genuine (i.e., triable) issue of material fact.  Florida courts have declined to grant summary judgment if the record raises the “slightest doubt” that material issues could be present.  By contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court has described the federal test as whether “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”  Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A party opposing summary judgment “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”  Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. More recently, the Supreme Court explained, in a case involving video evidence that conflicted with the plaintiff’s version of events, “[w]hen 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.”  Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).

The Florida Supreme Court concluded “the federal summary judgment standard better comports with the text and purpose of rule 1.510 and that adopting that standard is in the best interest of our state.”  In particular, the Court explained, “Our goals are simply to improve the fairness and efficiency of Florida’s civil justice system, to relieve parties from the expense and burdens of meritless litigation, and to save the work of juries for cases where there are real factual disputes that need resolution.”

Justice Labarga issued a lone dissent because, in his view, the majority decision infringes upon the jury’s sacred role in deciding civil disputes.

What’s Next.  The Court invited comments on the amendment, as well as whether the effective implementation of the amendment requires any additional, ancillary amendments to rule 1.510, whether there are specific textual provisions of federal rule 56 that should be added to rule 1.510, and whether rule 1.510 should be replaced in its entirety with the text of rule 56.  Comments must be filed with the Court by March 2, 2021, and the amendment will not take effect until May 1, 2021.

Whatever language the Court ultimately adopts for the amendment, it likely will take some time for Florida trial courts to adapt.  In the near term, parties may wish to hold off on filing motions for summary judgment, where feasible, until the amendment becomes effective.  Perhaps the most obvious candidates for summary judgment to be granted, where it previously would have been denied, are negligence cases involving video or digital evidence, which is becoming more ubiquitous with technological advances.  Long term, the amendment likely will result in fewer jury trials.  Additionally, the mere threat of a greater likelihood of summary judgment may cause cases to settle earlier, and the proposal for settlement/offer of judgment may become an even more powerful tool, particularly for defendants, as an award of summary judgment could result in fee-shifting pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 768.79 and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442.

¹ Florida’s rule 1.510(c) requires summary judgment where the record shows “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) requires 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.”