House examines state and federal standards for summary judgment.

A House panel November 6 discussed whether Florida should adopt the "less restrictive" federal standard for summary judgment.

House Civil Justice Subcommittee Chair Larry Metz, R-Groveland, said while the workshop topic was "not necessarily jazzy," it is important for those involved in the civil litigation system.

Teresa Ward, the committee's staff attorney, said while Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 and Federal Rule 56 are very similar, the difference is how they have been interpreted.

"The federal law has become more lenient as far as the movant goes and Florida's has been more restrictive," Ward said.

Florida honors the "slightest doubt rule," Ward said, which means if there is the slightest doubt in favor of the nonmoving party, summary judgment is not granted. The federal standard, she said, "is a bit looser."

The Florida standard has remained unchanged since 1966 while the federal standard was established in 1986. Thirty-five states have adopted the federal standard.

Israel Reyes, a former judge now in private practice in Coral Gables, said when he was on the bench carrying a caseload of 5,000 to 6,000 a month, he often thought many cases should have been disposed of via summary judgment, but he was restricted by Florida's interpretation of the rule.

Reyes said the federal rule allows for the disposition of a case at the summary judgment stage when--after the parties have had an opportunity to take necessary discovery--a party has no evidence to put at issue a material fact for which the party has the burden of proof at trial. He said under the current summary judgment standard in Florida, summary judgment is often denied, and the case sent to trial, only to have a judge direct a verdict.

"It really makes no sense to have a case go all the way through pretrial procedure when it is going to be resolved by means of a directed verdict anyway," said Reyes, adding that adopting the federal standard would preserve limited court resources by reserving the time-consuming and expensive process of a full-blown trial to those matters involving disputed, material issues of fact which can only be resolved by trial.

Charlie Wells, representing the Florida Justice Reform Institute, agreed.

"One thing I have become concerned about more and more as I have practiced law almost 50 years, is that one of--if not the greatest--impediment to the proper administration of civil justice is the expense and costs inherent in this system," said Wells, a...