Court Opinion

ID: 9908255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-08 15:03:16.977704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:03.774215
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
                       SECOND DISTRICT

     FLORIDA GULF COAST CHAPTER ASSOCIATED BUILDERS &
   CONTRACTORS, INC., as an Organization and Representative of its
                           Members,

                               Appellant,

                                   v.

CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, a Political subdivision of the State of Florida,

                               Appellee.

                             No. 2D22-953

                           December 8, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Cynthia Newton,
Judge.

Brian R. Lambert of Adams and Reese, LLP, Tampa; Richard N. Asfar and
Michael J. Baska of Almazan Law, Tampa, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General; Henry C. Whitaker, Solicitor General;
Jeffrey Paul DeSousa, Chief Deputy Solicitor General; and Alison E.
Preston, Assistant Solicitor General; Tallahassee, for Amicus Curiae
State of Florida.

Kenneth W. MacCollom, Assistant City Attorney, St. Petersburg, for
Appellee.

KELLY, Judge.
     Appellant Florida Gulf Coast Chapter of Associated Builders &
Contractors, Inc. (ABC Gulf), a trade organization, filed suit against
appellee City of St. Petersburg (the City), seeking a declaration that the
City's "Apprenticeship Ordinance," sections 2-261–64, and its
"Disadvantaged Worker Ordinance," sections 2-268–70, St. Petersburg
Code of Ordinances, conflict with or are preempted by Florida statutes
and that they violate constitutional principles. ABC Gulf also sought an
injunction preventing the enforcement of the ordinances. Without
elaboration, the trial court rendered final summary judgment for the
City. ABC Gulf appeals from that judgment, arguing, inter alia, that the
trial court failed to state its reasons for granting summary judgment as
required by amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(a). We agree
and remand for the trial court to comply with the amended rule.
     In 2021, the Florida Supreme Court amended the summary
judgment rule, rule 1.510, to conform with the federal summary
judgment standard. In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.510, 309
So. 3d 192, 192 (Fla. 2020) (adopting the federal summary judgment
standard); see also In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.510, 317 So.
3d 72, 74 (Fla. 2021) (replacing the text of the former version of rule
1.510 with the text of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56). According to
the amended rule, "[t]he court shall state on the record the reasons for
granting or denying the [summary judgment] motion." Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.510(a) (2021) (emphasis added). "The wording of the new rule makes
clear that the court's obligation in this regard is mandatory." In re
Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.510, 317 So. 3d at 77. "To comply
with this requirement, it will not be enough for the court to make a
conclusory statement that there is or is not a genuine dispute as to a

                                     2
material fact." Jones v. Ervolino, 339 So. 3d 473, 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
(quoting In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.510, 317 So. 3d at 77).
     The new standard governs the adjudication of any summary
judgment motion decided on or after the effective date of May 1, 2021.
Id. at 474. Since summary judgment was rendered in this case after the
effective date of the amended rule, the amended summary judgment
standard applies here. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to allow the
court an opportunity to state its reasons either at a hearing or in a
written order. See Rkhub Logistics LLC v. E. Auto Motor Corp., 344 So. 3d
485, 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (remanding for the court to "state the
reasons for its decision with enough specificity to provide useful
guidance to the parties and, if necessary, to allow for appellate review"
(quoting In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.510, 317 So. 3d at 77)).
     Reversed and remanded with instructions.

NORTHCUTT and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.

                                      3