TALLAHASSEE – The Florida Supreme Court’s Dec. 31 decision to adopt the federal standard for summary judgments in civil lawsuits will make the justice system more fair and efficient, according to business associations.
The high court ruled in a 6-1 decision that scrapping the previous state standard used to dismiss civil lawsuits was in the best interest of the state and the need to ensure that the administration of justice would be timely and not excessively costly.
“Florida courts’ interpretation of our summary judgment rule has unnecessarily failed to contribute to that objective,” the justices wrote. “Overall ... the federal summary judgment standard is more rational, more fair and more consistent with the structure and purpose of our rules of civil procedure.”
The federal rule, which the justices said would take effect on May 1, will help judges dispose of factually unsupported claims in civil litigation, they said.
“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,” the justices wrote.
Business associations in Florida, which have supported changes in the summary judgment standard, reacted positively to the high court’s ruling.
“This is a huge win for the Florida business community!” the Associated Industries of Florida said in a recent post on Twitter. “The money saved for consumers will be huge.”
The Florida Chamber of Commerce also saw the move as a victory in recent efforts to reform the state’s civil justice system.
“The Florida Supreme Court’s ruling to amend Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 to more closely align with the federal summary judgement standard is a major win for the Florida Chamber Litigation & Regulatory Reform Center and Florida’s civil justice system,” Carolyn Johnson, director of Business, Economic Development and Innovation Policy, told the Florida Record.
“With the new amended rule, closer alignment to the federal summary judgment will bring parity and allow for some cases to more quickly move through the judicial process, saving both time and money,” Johnson said.
One justice, Jorge Labarga, disagreed with the high court’s majority, arguing that adopting the federal standard will infringe on jurors’ role in evaluating facts and evidence.
“When the more relaxed federal interpretation is applied to a motion for summary judgment, the trial court’s analysis goes far beyond evaluating whether an issue of material fact is in dispute,” Labarga wrote. “Instead, the trial court assumes a role traditionally reserved for a jury and engages in weighing evidence.”