Shhh, don't tell anyone about this week's edition of 3d DCA Watch, because this is the one where you can learn -- finally -- how to win on summary judgment in state court. Yes, all you ham-and-eggers on Flagler Street, now you can WIN WIN WIN beyond your wildest gin-soaked dreams! And you big-firmers can even bill some CLE time today by reading our crappy little blog. (Go ahead, give yourself 7 hours -- no one counts that time anyway).
Ok, then, let's get into the nitty-gritty. It's somewhat technical, but luckily all you have to do is follow the steps laid out brilliantly by Judge Rothenberg in this opinion that I quote verbatim and in its entirety:
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint, seeking damages for the non-payment of goods referenced in four specific invoices. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, attaching, among other things, credit memos issued by the plaintiff and the deposition of the plaintiff’s president, Jorge Bergara. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion, and thereafter entered final summary judgment in favor of the defendants.Everyone got that? Let's recap -- apparently you can prevail on summary judgment if "no genuine issue of material fact exists" and you are "entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Astonishing!
Viewing the record on appeal as we must, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as the non-moving party, we affirm the trial court’s order entering final summary judgment as the defendants have conclusively demonstrated that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000); Rodriguez v. City of Key West, 981 So. 2d 664, 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).
Seriously, can someone tell me what the hail the justiciable issue was in this appeal? Just askin'.
12 comments:
Best part of the week, SFL!
SFL great article.
7 hours? Try 8 hours.
I hereby nominate Judge Rothenberg for US Supreme Court!!!
9:15, good idea.
9:15, it's the only reason I read law related blogs. Great write up SFL.
Why not just PCA it? The opinion is embarrassing.
Say hi to your chicka, SFL.
10:28, I think you mean 'chica'
SFL is suspiciously mum and quiet these days to pass along any message to the princess.
SF Lawyers, how can you miss the PIP case where they take a Bailey, Shumacher and Silverman circuit court opinion and review on Certioari and reverse. Read the Ramirez opinion carefully because he points out that the Third has now made insurance policy cooperation, which used to be an affirmative defense, a condition precedent, EVEN THOUGH NO ONE ARGUED THE ISSUE AT ANY TIME ON APPEAL. It is just whack.
And the opinion written by who? Mr. Right Wing himself, Shepherd.
The days of the Third looking out for the little guy are over.
3:22, I most certainly did see that latest outrage from Judge Shepherd, as well as that thoughtful and reasonable Ramirez dissent.
But I felt I was hammering Shepherd and his outcome-determinative judicial policymaking pretty hard the last few weeks, so I thought I'd give him a rest for a week.
I could pretty much devote every week to his opinions, it seems.
SF:
Hear dat.
Judge Shepherd engages in judicial activism at its finest. He would bring back the Dred Scott decision if he could!
Post a Comment