In Re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, 317 So.3d 72

The Florida Supreme Court decided to align Florida summary judgment practice with the federal standard and to replace much of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510 with the text of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, effective May 1, 2021.
The Court solicited public comment; most commenters favored adoption but many requested inclusion of Fed. R. 56(c) mechanics and timing modifications for Florida practice.
The Court concluded wholesale adoption of federal rule 56 (with limited Florida-specific timing changes) would promote uniformity, reduce litigation over textual differences, and allow reliance on federal precedent interpreting Rule 56.
Key rule changes: mandatory on-the-record statements of reasons for granting/denying summary judgment; Fed. 56(c)-style requirements for how parties must support/dispute facts (citations to record, affidavit requirements, admissibility objections); movant must serve supporting factual position at filing; nonmovant must serve its supporting factual position at least 20 days before hearing.
Timing adjustments for Florida retained hearing-tied deadlines: motions must be filed at least 40 days before hearing; nonmovant response with supporting facts at least 20 days before hearing.
New rule governs summary-judgment motions decided on or after May 1, 2021; courts should give parties reasonable opportunity to renew or amend filings in pending cases; rehearings of pre-amendment decisions remain under the old rule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Florida should adopt the federal summary-judgment standard	Adoption promotes uniformity, predictability, and access to federal caselaw	Preserving Florida's prior standard protects state procedural autonomy and existing practice	Court adopted the federal standard, largely replacing rule 1.510 with Federal Rule 56 text
Whether to incorporate Fed. R. 56(c) mechanics for presenting facts	Include Fed. 56(c) to clarify how parties must cite/support factual positions	Favor minimal textual changes beyond adopting the standard	Court adopted Fed. 56(c)-style provisions requiring citations to record, affidavit/declaration standards, and admissibility objections
Timing and hearing-linked deadlines	Keep deadlines tied to hearing but extend time to reduce surprise and gamesmanship	Prefer federal approach (less emphasis on hearing dates) or narrower changes	Court retained hearing-linked deadlines but set filing at least 40 days before hearing and nonmovant factual position 20 days before
Application to pending motions and rehearings	New rule should not disturb final pre-amendment decisions; allow renewal where appropriate	New standard should govern future decisions; allow adjustments in pending matters	New rule applies to motions decided on/after May 1, 2021; courts must allow reasonable opportunity to renew or amend pending filings; rehearings decided under pre-amendment rule

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (establishes that a movant need not disprove the nonmovant’s case but may show nonmovant lacks evidence)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (frames the genuine-dispute test: can a reasonable jury return a verdict for the nonmoving party)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (addresses standards for evaluating circumstantial evidence and inferences at summary judgment)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (a party’s factual story that is blatantly contradicted by the record cannot defeat summary judgment)
Bedford v. Doe, 880 F.3d 993 (8th Cir. 2018) (movant’s initial burden of production when nonmovant bears trial burden is not onerous)
Modrowski v. Pigatto, 712 F.3d 1166 (7th Cir. 2013) (discusses the movant’s production burden under Rule 56)
Wease v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., 915 F.3d 987 (5th Cir. 2019) (movant need not set forth evidence when nonmovant bears trial burden of persuasion)
Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2000) (explains differing burdens and vocabulary used in summary-judgment practice)
Wilsonart, LLC v. Lopez, 308 So. 3d 961 (Fla. 2020) (guidance on renewed motions under amended procedural rules)
Love v. State, 286 So. 3d 177 (Fla. 2019) (principle that newly adopted rules govern adjudications after the effective date)