Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure

773 So. 2d 1098, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 2312, 2000 WL 1472356
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedOctober 5, 2000
DocketNo. SC00-730
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 773 So. 2d 1098 (Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 773 So. 2d 1098, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 2312, 2000 WL 1472356 (Fla. 2000).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Civil Procedure Rules Committee of The Florida Bar has submitted its quadrennial report of proposed changes to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.130(c), the proposed changes were submitted to the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar for its recommendation, and the Board approved the changes. The proposed changes were published for comment, and one was filed. We approve the substantive amendments to the rules recommended by the Committee and the Board. We have made a limited number of stylistic changes.

Rule 1.061 is amended to add clarifying language to subdivisions (a) and (b); to add a time requirement in subdivision (g); and to add retention of jurisdiction provisions in subdivision (h).

Rule 1.280(b)(4) is amended to add a court commentary clarifying that subdivision (b)(4)(A)(iii) is not intended “to place a blanket bar on discovery from parties about information they have in their possession about an expert, including the party’s financial relationship with the expert.” See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Boecher, 733 So.2d 993, 999 (Fla.1999).

Rule 1.442 is amended to add subdivision (f)(2) to the rule, limiting the time for acceptance of proposals for settlement in class action suits to 30 days after the date the order granting or denying certification is filed. Subdivision (g) is amended to conform with the Committee’s proposed new rule 1.525 regarding motions for attorneys’ fees. Subdivision (b) is renamed to reflect more specifically its content.

Rule 1.525 is adopted, establishing the time for serving motions for attorneys’ fees and costs. We add a court commentary clarifying that this rule only establishes time requirements for serving such motions, and in no way affects or overrules the pleading requirements outlined by this [1099]*1099Court in Stockman v. Doums, 573 So.2d 835 (Fla.1991).

Rule 1.560 is amended to add subdivisions (b)-(e), which is patterned after Florida Small Claims Rule 7.221(a). We further adopt form 1.977, which is patterned after Florida Small Claims Form 7.343.

Rule 1.650(d)(3) is amended to implement the Court’s holding in Musculoskele-tal Institute Chartered v. Parham, 745 So.2d 946 (Fla.1999), that the tolling provisions of section 766.104(2) and section 766.106(4), Florida Statutes (1989), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.650(a), applicable to the statute of limitations, are equally applicable to the statute of repose in section 95.11(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1989).

Judgment forms 1.988, 1.990, 1.991, 1.993, 1.994, 1.995, and 1.996 are amended to include the names and addresses of parties, and judgment debtors’ social security numbers, if known, to comply with sections 55.01(2) and 55.10(1), Florida Statutes (1999).1

After reviewing the proposed rules and comments thereto, we adopt the rules as set forth in the appendix to this opinion. Deletions are indicated by struck-through type, and new language is indicated by underscoring. Committee notes are included for explanation and guidance only and are not adopted as an official part of the rules. The rules shall become effective on January 1, 2001, at 12:01 a.m.

It is so ordered.

WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

APPENDIX

RULE 1.061. CHOICE OF FORUM

(a) Grounds for Dismissal. An action may be dismissed on the ground that a satisfactory remedy may be more conveniently sought in a jurisdiction other than Florida when:

(1) the trial court finds that an adequate alternate forum exists which possesses jurisdiction over the whole case, including all of the parties;

(2) the trial court finds that all relevant factors of private interest favor the alternate forum, weighing in the balance a strong presumption against disturbing plaintiffs’ initial forum choice;

(3) if the balance of private interests is at or near equipoise, the court further finds that factors of public interest tip the balance in favor of trial in the alternate forum; and

(4) the trial judge ensures that plaintiffs can reinstate their suit in the alternate forum without undue inconvenience or prejudice.

The decision to grant or deny the motion for dismissal rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

(b) Stipulations in General. The parties to any action for which a satisfactory remedy may be more conveniently sought in a jurisdiction other than Florida may stipulate to conditions upon which a forum-non-conveniens dismissal shall be based, subject to approval by the trial court. The decision to accept or reject the stipulation rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

A forum-non-conveniens dismissal shall not be granted unless all defendants agree to the stipulations required by subdivision (c) and any additional stipulations required by the court.

(c) Statutes of Limitation. In moving for forum-non-conveniens dismissal, defendants shall be deemed to automatically stipulate that the action will be treated in [1100]*1100the new forum as though it had been filed in that forum on the date it was filed in Florida, with service of process accepted as of that date.

(d) Failure to Refile Promptly. When an action is dismissed in Florida for forum non conveniens, plaintiffs shall automatically be deemed to stipulate that they will lose the benefit of all stipulations made by the defendant, including the stipulation provided in subdivision (c) of this rule, if plaintiffs fail to file the action in the new forum within 120 days after the date the Florida dismissal becomes final.

(e) Waiver of Automatic Stipulations. Upon unanimous agreement, the parties may waive the conditions provided in subdivisions (c) or (d), or both, only when they demonstrate and the trial court finds a compelling reason for the waiver. The decision to accept or reject the waiver shall not be disturbed on review if supported by competent, substantial evidence.

(f) Reduction to Writing. The parties shall reduce their stipulation to a writing signed by them, which shall include all stipulations provided by this rule and which shall be deemed incorporated by reference in any subsequent order of dismissal.

(g) Time for Moving for Dismissal. A motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens shall be served not later than 60 days after service of process on the moving party.

(h) Retention of Jurisdiction. The court shall retain jurisdiction after the dismissal to enforce its order of dismissal and any conditions and stipulations in the order.

Court Commentary

This section was added to elaborate on Florida’s adoption of the federal doctrine of forum non conveniens in Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 674 So.2d 86 (Fla.1996), and it should be interpreted in light of that opinion.

Subdivision (a) codifies the federal standard for reviewing motions filed under the forum-non-eonveniens doctrine. Orders granting or denying dismissal for forum non conveniens are subject to appellate review under an abuse-of-discretion standard.

As stated in Kinney,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ruiz v. Policlinica Metropolitana, C.A.
260 So. 3d 1081 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Spradley v. Spradley
213 So. 3d 1042 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Sarras v. Mills-Sarras
161 So. 3d 509 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Amerus Life Insurance Co. v. Lait
2 So. 3d 203 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2009)
Martin Daytona v. Strickland Const. Serv.
941 So. 2d 1220 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Reid
930 So. 2d 598 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2006)
Byrne-Henry v. Hertz Corp.
927 So. 2d 66 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Norris v. Treadwell
907 So. 2d 1217 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Swann v. Dinan
884 So. 2d 398 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Lyn v. Lyn
884 So. 2d 181 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Betts v. Ace Cash Express, Inc.
863 So. 2d 1252 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
E & a PRODUCE CORP. v. Superior Garlic Int'l, Inc.
864 So. 2d 449 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Graef v. Dames & Moore Group, Inc.
857 So. 2d 257 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Gulf Landings Ass'n, Inc. v. Hershberger
845 So. 2d 344 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Wentworth v. Johnson
845 So. 2d 296 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Carter v. Lake County
840 So. 2d 1153 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Murray v. Hill
839 So. 2d 902 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Bal Bay Realty, Ltd. v. Pepsomers Corp.
833 So. 2d 320 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Diaz v. Bowen
832 So. 2d 200 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Ulico Casualty Co. v. ROGER KENNEDY CONSTRUCTION INC.
821 So. 2d 452 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
773 So. 2d 1098, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 2312, 2000 WL 1472356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amendments-to-the-florida-rules-of-civil-procedure-fla-2000.