Since 1966, Florida courts have required the moving party to conclusively “disapprove the nonmovant’s theory of the case in order to eliminate any issue of fact”. Hall v. Tolcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla 1966). By contrast, the US Supreme Court has held that there is “no express or implied requirement in Rule 56 that the moving party supports its motion with affidavits or other similar materials negating the opponents claim”. See Celotex Corp. Additionally, Florida courts have utilized an expansive understanding of what constitutes a “genuine issue of material fact”. “[T]he 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.” Bruce J. Berman & Peter D. Webster, Berman’s Florida Civil Procedure § 1.510:5 (2020 ed.). By contrast, the 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, 106 S.Ct. 2505. “If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Id. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505. 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, 106 S.Ct. 1348. More recently, the Supreme Court explained that “[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, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007).
The Florida Supreme Court noted that “our rules of civil procedure are meant ‘to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action’. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.010. Yet Florida courts’ interpretation of our summary judgment rule has unnecessarily failed to contribute to that objective.” In re Amendment to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 (Fla –2020).
It is the express intent of this amendment to recede from the expansive interpretation of what constitutes a genuine issue of material fact and allow trial courts more discretion to review the evidence and make a determination well before trial as to whether the evidence presented is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. The days of the nonmoving party defeating a motion for summary judgment by showing some remote, “metaphysical” doubt or a “colorable” argument without significantly probative evidence is no longer acceptable. Effective May 1, 2021, we expect that the new amended rule governing the summary judgment standard, the comments by the Florida Supreme Court in their adoption of this new rule, together with the existing Federal case law on summary judgment will help parties held hostage in litigation due to underwhelming arguments and scant evidence. We will see how the Florida trial judges embrace this new Rule, however it will put Florida in line with the Federal Courts and is going to give defendant’s more power and better opportunities to obtain summary judgments.
For additional information, please contact G. Jeffrey Vernis, Esq., Managing Partner.