Court Opinion

ID: 9398482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 15:06:20.50547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:33.914823
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                             FOURTH DISTRICT

                    NATALIA DEMARCO FUENTES,
                             Appellant,

                                     v.

  LUXURY OUTDOOR DESIGN, INC., a Florida for profit corporation,
    ROBERT COGGINS, an individual, and ROBERT ANASTASI,
                      an individual,
                         Appellees.

                              No. 4D22-332

                              [May 31, 2023]

   Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Keathan Frink, Judge; L.T. Case No. 16-15675 CACE
(12).

  Debbie R. Campbell of Campbell Legal Group PLLC, Coral Gables, for
appellant.

   No appearance for appellees.

                   ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

   Upon consideration of the motion for clarification filed by the appellee,
Robert Coggins, we grant the motion, withdraw the opinion filed March 8,
2023, and substitute the following opinion in its place. We note the
appellant’s response to the motion for clarification, deny her requests
therein for clarification and for an order to show cause why sanctions
should not be imposed, and deny her motion for rehearing, clarification,
and written opinion.

    Natalia Fuentes (“the plaintiff”) appeals two orders addressing her
complaint against Robert Coggins (“the defendant”): 1) the order granting
dismissal of most counts, and 2) the summary judgment order disposing
of the two remaining counts. She raises multiple issues on appeal but we
find merit as to only one, namely her argument that the trial court erred
in granting summary judgment based on her failure to respond to the
defendant’s summary judgment motion. With respect to the remaining
issues, we affirm without further discussion.

    The plaintiff filed a complaint and then an amended complaint. The
defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, but before the
hearing, the plaintiff filed a Substitute Amended Complaint. At the
hearing on the motion to dismiss the amended complaint, the defendant
agreed that the court could consider the motion to dismiss as directed to
the Substitute Amended Complaint. After the trial court granted the
motion to dismiss as to most of the counts against the defendant in the
Substitute Amended Complaint, 1 he filed an answer and raised affirmative
defenses and moved for summary judgment concerning the remaining
counts, negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The plaintiff did not
file a response to the motion.

    During a hearing on the motion, the trial court observed that the
plaintiff had failed to file a response and that the summary judgment rule
requires the nonmovant to serve a response, including a supporting
factual position, at least twenty days before the summary judgment
hearing. The trial court found that “[b]ased on the failure to properly
respond to the motion for summary judgment, according to amended rule
1.510(c)(5), the court has no alternative but to find that there is no dispute
of the factual allegations raised by . . . [the] defendant in the motion for
summary judgment,” and it granted the motion.

   First, we note that the motion for summary judgment quoted from and
attached the first amended complaint rather than the operative complaint,
which was styled as the Substitute Amended Complaint.

   Second, the amended summary judgment rule, which applies here,
does not provide that summary judgment may be granted based solely on
the nonmovant’s failure to respond. Rather, the rule provides that “[i]f a
party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly
address another party’s assertion of fact as required by rule 1.510(c), the
court may,” among other things, “consider the fact undisputed for
purposes of the motion,” or “grant summary judgment if the motion and
supporting materials – including the facts considered undisputed – show
that the movant is entitled to it[.]” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(e) (2022); see also
Lloyd S. Meisels, P.A., v. Dobrofsky, 341 So. 3d 1131, 1134-36 (Fla. 4th

1 The order granting in part the motion to dismiss stated that the operative
complaint was the amended complaint. This appears to be a clerical error, as the
trial court ruled on the Substitute Amended Complaint, thus making it the
operative complaint.

                                       2
DCA 2022) (recognizing that pursuant to rule 1.510(c)(5), the requirement
of filing a response is mandatory, and if one is not filed, rule 1.510(e)
“provides discretionary options for the trial court,” including “grant[ing]
summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials – including the
facts considered undisputed – show that the movant is entitled to it”).
Further, the rule requires the trial court to “state on the record the reasons
for granting or denying the motion.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(a).

    The trial court’s stated reason for granting the motion was that, based
on the plaintiff’s failure to respond, it had “no alternative but to find that”
the facts were undisputed. However, this reasoning does not support a
conclusion that the defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter
of law. In other words, this reasoning does not indicate that the court
analyzed whether the “supporting materials – including the facts
considered undisputed,” would necessarily result in the defendant’s
entitlement to summary judgment based on any of the defendant’s myriad
arguments in support of summary judgment, nor is there any indication
that the trial court considered these arguments.

   To the extent the trial court believed it lacked discretion to engage in
any analysis because the nonmovant failed to respond to the summary
judgment motion, this was error. While the trial court may have found
that the defendant, based on the undisputed facts alleged and arguments
raised by the defendant in his motion, was entitled to summary judgment,
that finding is not apparent from the reasons stated on the record.

   Based on the foregoing, we affirm the order granting dismissal, reverse
the summary judgment, and remand for further proceedings on the
negligence and negligent misrepresentation counts.

   Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

WARNER, CIKLIN and FORST, JJ., concur.

                             *        *         *

   Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                                      3