At the very end of an already tumultuous 2020, the Supreme Court of Florida issued a decision on December 31, 2020, adopting the federal summary judgment standard. In that opinion, rather than making substantial changes to the text of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.5109(c), the rule containing Florida’s current standard, the Court chose to amend the rule by adding language about how to interpret the standard provided. Specifically, the court changed the word “issue” to “dispute” and noted in that decision that the following sentence would be added to the existing rule: “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)” (the “Celotrex Trilogy”).
After that decision was released and before the May 1, 2021 effective date of the new rule, the Court allowed the public to comment on the amendment set forth in the December decision. After significant public comment during the period, on April 29, 2021, the Court issued another opinion, analyzing those comments and amending the rule and the Court’s guidance based on those comments.
These comments persuaded the Court to largely adopt the test of Federal Rule 56 as a replacement for Rule 1.501, thereby effectively moving the Florida motion to summary judgement standard to the federal standard and incorporating all of future and current case law interpreting the rule, not just the Celotex Trilogy. The Court has also chosen to specifically address concerns by including language noting that the rule should be construed and applied in accordance with the federal standard.
In the April 29, 2021 decision, the Court took under advisement the comments and amended the substance of Rule 1.510(c) again and provided guidance as to the procedural implications of the adoption of the federal standard. The Florida Court was persuaded to adopt the procedural rules, including the timing for filing and responding to Motions for Summary Judgment to align with the federal rule. Now, Rule 1.510 requires a summary judgment motion be filed 40 days before the hearing, and the response be filed 20 days before the hearing.
The Court did not issue any specific guidance on whether the requirement that the adverse party to a motion for summary judgment specifically identify the evidence upon which it intend to rely under the ruling of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Figler Family Chiropractic, P.A.. 41 Fla. L. Weekly D805b (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 30, 2016) (“Figler Family”). However the language that references the five day requirement addressed by the court in Figler Family has been struck, and it is likely that this requirement of a notice to rely is no longer applicable.
Without leaving much time for the Florida Courts to prepare for the new procedural implications, it may be a rocky start to the implementation of the new standard but the good news is that many judges and attorneys will find this change to be a change to a familiar standard making the transition a little bit easier. This may make it easier on lawyers who appear in both Federal and State Courts in Florida. As the rule takes hold, it will be exciting to watch Florida Courts’ interpretations and implementation of this new, but familiar standard.