Florida Real Property and Business Litigation Report
Volume XVII, Issue 49
December 6, 2024
Manuel Farach
In Re: Amendments To Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Case No. SC2023-0962 (Fla. 2024).
https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/2444348/opinion/Opinion_SC2023-0962.pdf
The Florida Supreme Court leaves in place the proportionality requirements for discovery, requires objections to discovery be made with “specificity” and “including the reason” for the objection, requires objections to state whether documents are being withheld based on the objection, adds enforcement under Rule 1.380, limits discovery being sent before party’s compliance with initial disclosures are satisfied, and exempts trial continuances and extension of case management orders from Rule 1.090.
In Re: Amendments To Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 and New Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.202., Case No. SC2024-0662 (Fla. 2024).
https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/2444350/opinion/Opinion_SC2024-0662.pdf
The Florida Supreme Court further refines Rule 1.510 to hold that a response is due no later than 40 days after service of the motion and that “[a]ny hearing on a motion for summary judgment be set for a date at least 10 days after the deadline for serving responses,” and further refines new Rule 1.202 regarding conferral before filing motions, including providing for sanctions.
Evanston Insurance Company v. Everest Denali Insurance Company; Case No. 2D2023-0205 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024).
https://2dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2444233/opinion/Opinion_2023-0205.pdf
Nothing under Florida’s Assignment for Benefit of Creditors Act, Florida Statutes Chapter 727, requires an evidentiary hearing before approving a settlement agreement affecting claims in the assigned estate.
Pulles v. Onorato, Case No. 3D23-2106 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).
https://3dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2444261/opinion/Opinion_2023-2106.pdf
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a late filed request for jury trial when “discovery has been taken in preparation for a bench trial, [re-setting the case for jury trial] would be prejudicial to the Plaintiff and the expense of a jury trial would be more substantial to the Plaintiff.”
Village of Palmetto Bay v. Miami-Dade County, Case No. 3D24-0230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).
https://3dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2444269/opinion/Opinion_2024-0230.pdf
A COVID-era ordinance which suspends timing requirements for constructions project approvalss is valid and does not invalidate the project’s funding.
Barcelo v. Little Paket Corp., Case No. 3D24-0983 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).
https://3dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2444273/opinion/Opinion_2024-0983.pdf
Punitive damages are reserved for outrageous conduct notwithstanding allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and conspiracy.