Case Title: In Re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.240

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC16-170

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2016-04-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC16-170 
____________ 
 
 
IN RE:  AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF JUDICIAL 
ADMINISTRATION 2.240. 
 
[April 21, 2016] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
We have for consideration amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial 
Administration 2.240(b)(2)(B) (Determination of Need for Additional Judges; 
District Courts of Appeal) proposed by the Commission on District Court of 
Appeal Performance and Accountability (Commission).1  We adopt the 
amendments as proposed and allow for comments from interested persons 
consistent with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.140(g)(1).   
Background 
 
As relevant here, Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.240 sets forth the 
process by which this Court determines and certifies to the Legislature the need for 
                                          
 
 
1. We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.   
 
 
- 2 - 
increasing or decreasing the number of judges on a district court of appeal.  
Subdivision (b)(2)(B) of the rule provides that this Court “will presume that there 
is a need for an additional appellate court judgeship in any district for which a 
request is made” by the chief judge of the district “and where the relative weight of 
cases disposed on the merits per judge would have exceeded 280 after application 
of the proposed additional judge(s).”  Under subdivision (b)(2)(B)(i), “[t]he 
relative weight of cases disposed on the merits [is] determined based upon case 
disposition statistics supplied to the state courts administrator by the clerks of the 
district courts of appeal, multiplied by the relative case weights established 
pursuant to subdivision (b)(2)(B)(ii), and divided by 100.”  Under subdivision 
(b)(2)(B)(ii), the Commission reviews “the workload trends of the district courts of 
appeal and consider[s] adjustments in the relative case weights every four years.”  
However, the rule currently does not provide a review process for the weighted 
case disposition threshold, which is the subject of the amendments proposed by the 
Commission. 
The Commission proposes amendments to rule 2.240(b)(2)(B) consistent 
with the recommendations made in the Commission’s June 2015 report to the 
Court entitled Review of the Weighted Case Disposition Threshold for District 
Court of Appeal Judges (Report), which were previously approved by the Court.  
The approved recommendations were (1) to revise the current weighted case 
 
 
- 3 - 
disposition threshold of 280 to 315, taking into account the increase in appellate 
court judges and current workload trends, and (2) for the Commission to pursue 
amending rule 2.240(b)(2)(B) to remove the specific threshold number of 280 and 
to provide for a four-year review cycle for the threshold, similar to that performed 
by the Commission for the relative case weights.  Report at 2, 8.  The 
Commission’s proposed amendments to rule 2.240(b)(2)(B), which are now before 
the Court, have not been published for comment. 
Amendments 
Consistent with the Commission’s second recommendation, we amend 
subdivision (b)(2)(B) of rule 2.240 to replace the current specific weighted case 
disposition threshold number of “280” with the words “the weighted case 
disposition threshold.”  This amendment will allow for changes in the threshold 
number once the review cycles that will now be required under subdivision 
(b)(2)(B)(ii) are complete.  To provide for review of the weighted case disposition 
threshold number every four years, subdivision (b)(2)(B)(ii) of the rule is amended, 
as proposed, to add the language “and the weighted case disposition threshold” to 
the statement providing for a four-year review of the relative case weights by the 
Commission.  Finally, the following sentence is added at the end of the 
subdivision: “Any such recommended adjustment shall be subject to the approval 
of the Supreme Court.” 
 
 
- 4 - 
In conclusion, the Court thanks the Commission for its review of and 
recommendations on the weighted case disposition threshold for district court of 
appeal judges, and for the Commission’s continued review of the workload trends 
of our district courts of appeal. 
Accordingly, we amend Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.240 as set 
forth in the appendix to this opinion.  New language is indicated by underscoring; 
deletions are indicated by struck-through type.  The amendments shall become 
effective immediately upon the release of this opinion.  Because the amendments 
were not published for comment prior to their adoption, interested persons shall 
have sixty days from the date of this opinion in which to file comments with the 
Court.2   
                                          
 
2.  All comments must be filed with the Court on or before June 20, 2016, 
with a certificate of service verifying that a copy has been served on the 
Commission Chair, Vance E. Salter, Third District Court of Appeal, 2001 
Southwest 117th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33175-1716, salterv@flcourts.org, and 
on OSCA staff to the Commission, James C. Goodlett, General Counsel’s Office, 
Office of the State Courts Administrator, 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee, FL  
32399, goodletc@flcourts.org, as well as a separate request for oral argument if the 
person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral argument, which may be 
scheduled in this case.  The Commission Chair has until July 11, 2016, to file a 
response to any comments filed with the Court.  If filed by an attorney in good 
standing with The Florida Bar, the comment must be electronically filed via the 
Florida Courts E-Filing Portal in accordance with In re Electronic Filing in the 
Supreme Court of Florida via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, Fla. Admin. Order 
No. AOSC13-7 (Feb. 18, 2013).  If filed by a nonlawyer or a lawyer not licensed to 
practice in Florida, the comment must be electronically filed via e-mail in 
accordance with In re Mandatory Submission of Electronic Copies of Documents, 
Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC04-84 (Sept. 13, 2004).  Electronically filed 
 
 
- 5 - 
It is so ordered. 
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, 
and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
 
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS. 
 
Original Proceeding – Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 
 
Judge Vance Edwin Salter, Chair, Commission on District Court of Appeal 
Performance and Accountability, Miami, Florida, and James Calvin Goodlett, 
Office of the General Counsel, Office of the State Courts Administrator, 
Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
 
                                          
 
documents must be submitted in Microsoft Word 97 or higher.  Any person unable 
to submit a comment electronically must mail or hand-deliver the originally signed 
comment to the Florida Supreme Court, Office of the Clerk, 500 South Duval 
Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1927; no additional copies are required or will 
be accepted. 
 
 
 
 
 
- 6 - 
RULE 2.240.  
DETERMINATION OF NEED FOR ADDITIONAL 
JUDGES 
 
(a)  
[No Change]  
 
(b)  
Criteria. 
 
(1) 
[No Change] 
 
(2)  
District Courts of Appeal. 
 
(A)  [No Change] 
 
(B)  The court will presume that there is a need for an 
additional appellate court judgeship in any district for which a request is made and 
where the relative weight of cases disposed on the merits per judge would have 
exceeded 280the weighted case disposition threshold after application of the 
proposed additional judge(s). 
 
(i)  
The relative weight of cases disposed on the merits 
shall be determined based upon case disposition statistics supplied to the state 
courts administrator by the clerks of the district courts of appeal, multiplied by the 
relative case weights established pursuant to subdivision (b)(2)(B)(ii), and divided 
by 100. 
(ii)  
The Commission on District Court of Appeal 
Performance and Accountability shall review the workload trends of the district 
courts of appeal and consider adjustments in the relative case weights and the 
weighted case disposition threshold every four years. Any such recommended 
adjustment shall be subject to the approval of the supreme court. 
 
(c) – (d) 
[No Change] 
 
Court Commentary 
 
[No Change]