Florida Electric Light & Supply, Inc. v. GTE Products Corp.

Florida Circuit Courts

Florida Electric Light & Supply, Inc. v. GTE Products Corp.

21 Fla. Supp. 2d 165

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedJanuary 26, 1987

DocketCase No. 85-084 AP

StatusPublished

This text of 21 Fla. Supp. 2d 165 (Florida Electric Light & Supply, Inc. v. GTE Products Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Florida Electric Light & Supply, Inc. v. GTE Products Corp., 21 Fla. Supp. 2d 165 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

FREDERICK N. BARAD, Judge.

Appellant [Defendant below] noticed Appellee [Plaintiff below] for a deposition in response to which Appellee filed a Motion for Protective Order. An agreed order was entered granting Appellee’s motion for a protective order and ordering Appellee to make its witness available for deposition on the day before the scheduled trial. Prior to the court-ordered deposition, the Appellee filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Appellant filed a Motion to Strike/Postpone the Motion for [166]*166Summary Judgment. Said motion was denied and Appellee’s motion for summary judgment was granted. It is from the court’s order granting summary judgment that this appeal was taken.

On the state of the record, it was premature for the trial court to enter a summary judgment prior to the deposition of Appellee’s representative by the Appellant. Commercial Bank of Kendall v. Heiman, 322 So.2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) and Societe Euro-Suisse v. Citizens and Southern International Bank, 394 So.2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The matter is returned to the trial court for further proceedings, which may include subsequent motions for summary judgment after all discovery is completed.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Simons and Goldman, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

FREDERICK N. BARAD, Judge.

Appellant [Defendant below] noticed Appellee [Plaintiff below] for a deposition in response to which Appellee filed a Motion for Protective Order. An agreed order was entered granting Appellee’s motion for a protective order and ordering Appellee to make its witness available for deposition on the day before the scheduled trial. Prior to the court-ordered deposition, the Appellee filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Appellant filed a Motion to Strike/Postpone the Motion for [166]*166Summary Judgment. Said motion was denied and Appellee’s motion for summary judgment was granted. It is from the court’s order granting summary judgment that this appeal was taken.

On the state of the record, it was premature for the trial court to enter a summary judgment prior to the deposition of Appellee’s representative by the Appellant. Commercial Bank of Kendall v. Heiman, 322 So.2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) and Societe Euro-Suisse v. Citizens and Southern International Bank, 394 So.2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The matter is returned to the trial court for further proceedings, which may include subsequent motions for summary judgment after all discovery is completed.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Simons and Goldman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Fla. Supp. 2d 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-electric-light-supply-inc-v-gte-products-corp-flacirct-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack