In Re Amendments to Rules of Civ. Procedure

966 So. 2d 943, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 606, 2007 Fla. LEXIS 1788, 2007 WL 2790745
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedSeptember 27, 2007
DocketSC07-173
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 966 So. 2d 943 (In Re Amendments to Rules of Civ. 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
In Re Amendments to Rules of Civ. Procedure, 966 So. 2d 943, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 606, 2007 Fla. LEXIS 1788, 2007 WL 2790745 (Fla. 2007).

Opinion

966 So.2d 943 (2007)

In re AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

No. SC07-173.

Supreme Court of Florida.

September 27, 2007.

Corinne Cotton Hodak, Chair, the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, Jacksonville, FL, John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, Madelon Horwich, Bar Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the Court for consideration of proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

The Florida Bar Civil Procedure Rules Committee (committee) has filed its regular-cycle report of proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The committee proposes amendments to rules 1.120 (Pleading Special Matters); 1.140 (Defenses); 1.210 (Parties); 1.221 (Condominium Associations); 1.280 (General Provisions Governing Discovery); 1.310 (Depositions Upon Oral Examination); 1.351 (Production of Documents and Things Without Deposition); 1.360 (Examination of Persons); 1.410 (Subpoena); 1.470 (Exceptions Unnecessary);[1] 1.650 (Medical Malpractice Presuit Screening Rule); 1.820 (Hearing Procedures for Non-Binding Arbitration); and forms 1.902 (Summons); 1.910 (Subpoena for Trial); *944 1.911 (Subpoena Duces Tecum for Trial); 1.912 (Subpoena for Deposition); 1.913 (Subpoena Duces Tecum for Deposition); 1.922 (Subpoena Duces Tecum Without Deposition); and 1.982 (Contempt Notice). The committee also proposes new rule 1.526 (Expert Opinion Testimony on Costs and Attorneys' Fees).

Prior to submission to the Court, the proposals were published for comment in The Florida Bar News. Several comments were received by the committee, and in response to those comments, revisions were made to the proposed amendments to rules 1.120 and 1.221. The revised proposals were then published for comment. No further comments were received at that time. After submission to the Court, all of the committee's proposed amendments were published once again for comment in the March 1, 2007, edition of The Florida Bar News. No comments were received in response to the March publication.

Upon consideration of the committee's proposals, the comments filed by interested parties, and the presentations made at oral argument in this case, we adopt the amendments as proposed by the committee, with one exception. In response to a suggestion by one of the authors of an article published in The Florida Bar Journal,[2] the committee proposed new rule 1.526 providing that "[e]xpert opinion is not required to support or oppose a claim or an award of costs, attorneys' fees, or both, unless by prior order of the court." We conclude that the issue of whether expert opinion testimony is required in this context is not one that is appropriately addressed in a rule of procedure. Thus, while we express no opinion on the substance of the committee's proposal, we decline to adopt it as a rule of civil procedure.

The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure are hereby amended as set forth in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by underscoring; deletions are indicated by struck-through type. The committee notes are offered for explanation only and are not adopted as an official part of the rules. The amendments shall become effective January 1, 2008, at 12:01 a.m.

It is so ordered.

LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.

APPENDIX

RULE 1.120. PLEADING SPECIAL MATTERS

(a) Capacity. It is not necessary to aver the capacity of a party to sue or be sued, the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party, except to the extent required to show the jurisdiction of the court. The initial pleading served on behalf of a minor party shall specifically aver the age of the minor party. When a party desires to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party, the capacity of any party to sue or be sued, or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, that party shall do so by specific negative averment which shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader's knowledge.

(b)-(g) [No change]

*945 RULE 1.140. DEFENSES

(a) When Presented.

(1) Unless a different time is prescribed in a statute of Florida, aA defendant shall serve an answer within 20 days after service of original process and the initial pleading on the defendant, or not later than the date fixed in a notice by publication. A party served with a pleading stating a crossclaim against that party shall serve an answer to it within 20 days after service on that party. The plaintiff shall serve an answer to a counterclaim within 20 days after service of the counterclaim. If a reply is required, the reply shall be served within 20 days after service of the answer.

(2) (A) Except when sued pursuant to section 768.28, Florida Statutes, the state of Florida, an agency of the state, or an officer or employee of the state sued in an official capacity shall serve an answer to the complaint or crossclaim, or a reply to a counterclaim, within 40 days after service.

(B) When sued pursuant to section 768.28, Florida Statutes, the Department of Financial Services or the defendant state agency shall have 30 days from the date of service within which to serve an answer to the complaint or crossclaim or a reply to a counterclaim.

(23) The service of a motion under this rule, except a motion for judgment on the pleadings or a motion to strike under subdivision (f), alters these periods of time so that if the court denies the motion or postpones its disposition until the trial on the merits, the responsive pleadings shall be served within 10 days after notice of the court's action or, if the court grants a motion for a more definite statement, the responsive pleadings shall be served within 10 days after service of the more definite statement unless a different time is fixed by the court in either case.

(34) If the court permits or requires an amended or responsive pleading or a more definite statement, the pleading or statement shall be served within 10 days after notice of the court's action. Responses to the pleadings or statements shall be served within 10 days of service of the pleadings or statements.

(b)-(h) [No change]

Committee Notes

1972 Amendment. Subdivision (a) is amended to eliminate the unnecessary statement of the return date when service is made by publication, and to accommodate the change proposed in rule 1.100(a) making a reply mandatory under certain circumstances. Motions to strike under subdivision (f) are divided into 2 categories, so subdivision (a) is also amended to accommodate this change by eliminating motions to strike under the new subdivision (f) as motions that toll the running of time. A motion to strike an insufficient legal defense will now be available under subdivision (b) and continue to toll the time for responsive pleading. Subdivision (b) is amended to include the defense of failure to state a sufficient legal defense. The proper method of attack for failure to state a legal defense remains a motion to strike. Subdivision (f) is changed to accommodate the 2 types of motions to strike. The motion to strike an insufficient legal defense is now in subdivision (b). The motion to strike under subdivision (f) does not toll the time for responsive pleading and can be made at any time, and the matter can be stricken by the court on its initiative at any time.

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

Related

Stephen J. Rogers v. United States
109 Fed. Cl. 280 (Federal Claims, 2013)
SOURCETRACK, LLC v. Ariba, Inc.
34 So. 3d 766 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
966 So. 2d 943, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 606, 2007 Fla. LEXIS 1788, 2007 WL 2790745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendments-to-rules-of-civ-procedure-fla-2007.