Case Title: In Re: Amendments To Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.240 – Determination Of Need For Additional Judges

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC07-14

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2008-01-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC07-14 
____________ 
 
 
IN RE:  AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF JUDICIAL 
ADMINISTRATION 2.240––DETERMINATION OF NEED FOR 
ADDITIONAL JUDGES. 
 
[January 31, 2008] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
This matter is before the Court for consideration of proposed amendments to 
the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 
2(a), Fla. Const. 
 
On January 8, 2007, the Trial Court Performance and Accountability 
Commission (Commission) filed a petition with the Court proposing amendments 
to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.240 (Determination of Need for 
Additional Judges).  The proposed amendments are intended to update the criteria 
set forth in rule 2.240(b)(1) and reflect the new “weighted caseload” measure of 
judicial workload now utilized by the Court in determining the need for additional 
trial court judges. 
 
The proposed amendments were published for comment in The Florida Bar 
News on March 1, 2007.  No comments were received.  The proposed amendments 
to rule 2.240 are unanimously supported by the members of the Commission.  The 
Commission also represented that it has consulted with the trial court chief judges, 
and they concur with the proposed amendments.  We have previously adopted the 
case weight methodology in place of the case filings per judge threshold for use in 
determining the need for judges in the district courts of appeal.  See In re Report of 
the Commission on District Court of Appeal Performance and Accountability—
Rule of Judicial Administration 2.035, 933 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 2006); Fla. R. Jud. 
Admin. 2.240(b)(2).          
 
Upon consideration, we adopt the amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial 
Administration 2.240(b)(1) as proposed by the Commission.  First, subdivision 
(b)(1)(A) is rewritten to replace the case filings per judge threshold with the case 
weight methodology, which relies primarily on case weights, forecasted case 
filings, and calculations of available judge time to determine the need for 
additional trial court judges.  Next, subdivision (b)(1)(B), which currently lists 
“other factors” which may be used in the determination of the need for additional 
judges, is amended to (1) delete the reference to case filing thresholds, (2) delete 
“the nature and complexity of cases” as a separate factor because it will already be 
factored into the calculation of case weights, (3) incorporate the term “magistrate” 
 
- 2 -
in keeping with 2004 legislation,1 and (4) conform language regarding “availability 
and use” of county court and senior judges to that used in subsequent subdivisions.  
Finally, new subdivision (b)(1)(C) is added, requiring the Commission to “review 
the trial court workload trends and case weights and consider adjustments no less 
than every five years.”2 
  
Accordingly, we hereby adopt the amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial 
Administration 2.240 (Determination of Need for Additional Judges) as reflected 
in the appendix to this opinion.  New language is indicated by underlining, and 
deleted language is struck through.  The amendments shall become effective 
immediately.  
 
It is so ordered. 
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and 
BELL, JJ., concur. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
                                          
 
 
1.  See ch. 2004-11, §§ 3, 52-103, Laws of Fla. (adopting the term 
“magistrates” in place of the term “masters” in numerous sections of Florida 
Statutes). 
  
 
2.  The Commission also recommended that the reference to the Court’s 
opinion in In re Report of the Commission on District Court of Appeal 
Performance and Accountability—Rule of Judicial Administration 2.035 in 
subdivision (a) of rule 2.240 be amended to reflect the current Southern Reporter 
citation.  However, this change was recently made when the Florida Rules of 
Judicial Administration were renumbered.  See In re Amendments to the Florida 
Rules of Judicial Administration—Reorganization of the Rules, 939 So. 2d 966 
(Fla. 2006).  Accordingly, it need not be further addressed here. 
 
- 3 -
 
Original Proceeding – Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 
 
Honorable Robert T. Benton, II, Chair, Rules of Judicial Administration 
Committee, First District Court of Appeal, Tallahassee, Florida, and Alice 
Blackwell White, Chair, Commission of Trial Court Performance and 
Accountability, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orlando, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
 
- 4 -
APPENDIX 
Rule 2.240. DETERMINATION OF NEED FOR ADDITIONAL JUDGES 
(a) [No change] 
(b) Criteria. 
 
 
(1) Trial Courts. 
 
 
 
 
(A) The following thresholds have been established based upon 
caseload statistics supplied to the state courts administrator by the clerks of 
the circuit courts. Courts either at or projected to be at the thresholds are 
presumed to have a need for one or more additional judges. The thresholds 
are not an optimal level but reflect that the courts are operating above 
capacity.Assessment of judicial need at the trial court level is based 
primarily upon the application of case weights to circuit and county court 
caseload statistics supplied to the Office of the State Courts Administrator 
by the clerks of the circuit courts, pursuant to rule 2.245, Florida Rules of 
Judicial Administration.  Such case weights provide a quantified measure of 
judicial time spent on case-related activity, translating judicial caseloads into 
judicial workload by factoring in the relative complexity by case type in the 
following manner:  
 
 
(i) The circuit court threshold is 1,865 case filings per circuit 
 
judge. These case filings include circuit criminal (includes worthless 
checks), civil (includes habeas corpus), juvenile dependency and 
delinquency, domestic relations (including child support), probate, 
guardianship, and mental health cases.The circuit court case weights 
are applied to forecasted case filings, which include circuit criminal 
(includes felony, drug court, and worthless check cases), circuit civil 
(includes matters involving claims of $15,000.01 and above), family 
(includes domestic relations, juvenile dependency, and juvenile 
delinquency cases), and probate (includes guardianship, mental health, 
and trust cases).  
(ii) The county court threshold is 6,114 case filings per county 
judge. These case filings include criminal misdemeanor, county civil 
(including small claims and landlord-tenant), violations of county or 
municipal ordinances, DUI, and other criminal traffic cases; they do 
not include worthless check cases. The county court case weights are 
applied to forecasted filings, which include county criminal (includes 
 
- 5 -
misdemeanor, violations of county and municipal ordinance, 
worthless check, driving under the influence, and other criminal 
traffic cases), and county civil (includes small claims, matters 
involving claims ranging from $5,000.01 to $15,000, landlord-tenant, 
and civil traffic infraction cases). 
 
(B) Other factors may be utilized in the determination of the need for 
one or more additional judges. These other factors may indicate that need for 
an additional judge(s) even though a court may not have achieved the 
presumptive threshold. Conversely, the absence of these other factors may 
mitigate the need for one or more additional judges. These other factors 
include, but are not limited to, the following: 
 
 
(i) County judge availability to serve and county judge service 
 
in circuit court. The availability and use of county court judges in 
circuit court.  
 
(ii) The use and availability and use of senior judges to serve on 
a particular court. 
 
 
(iii) The availability and use of supplemental hearing officers 
magistrates and hearing officers. 
 
 
 
 
 
(iv) The extent of use of alternative dispute resolution. 
 
 
 
 
 
(v) The number of jury trials. 
 
 
 
 
 
(vi) Foreign language interpretations. 
 
 
(vii) The geographic size of a circuit, including travel times 
between courthouses in a particular jurisdiction. 
 
 
(viii) Law enforcement activities in the court's jurisdiction, 
including any substantial commitment of additional resources for state 
attorneys, public defenders, and local law enforcement. 
 
 
(ix) The availability and use of case-related support staff and 
case management policies and practices. 
 
(x) The nature and complexity of cases coming before the 
courts in the jurisdiction. 
 
 
 
 
 
(xi) Caseload trends. 
 
(C) The Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability 
shall review the trial court workload trends and case weights and consider 
adjustments no less than every five years. 
 
 
(2) District Courts of Appeal. [No Change] 
 
 
 
 
- 6 -
 
- 7 -
(c) – (d)   [No Change] 
 
Court Commentary 
 
[No Change]