In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure

131 So. 3d 643, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 836, 2013 WL 6164572, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 2476
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedNovember 14, 2013
DocketNo. SC13-74
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 131 So. 3d 643 (In re 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
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 131 So. 3d 643, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 836, 2013 WL 6164572, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 2476 (Fla. 2013).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for consideration the regular-cycle report of proposed rule amendments filed by The Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee (Committee). See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(b)(4). We have jurisdiction1 and adopt the amendments as proposed.

BACKGROUND

The Committee proposes amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.380 (Failure to Make Discovery; Sanctions); 1.431 (Trial Jury); 1.442 (Proposals for Settlement); 1.480 (Motion for a Directed Verdict); 1.490 (Magistrates); 1.530 (Motions for New Trial and Rehearing; Amendments of Judgments); 1.560 (Discovery in Aid of Execution); and 1.630 (Extraordinary Remedies); and forms 1.910 (Subpoena for Trial); 1.911(Subpoe-na Duces Tecum for Trial); 1.912 (Subpoena for Deposition); 1.913 (Subpoena Duces Tecum for Deposition); 1.922 (Subpoena Duces Tecum without Deposition); 1.977 (Fact Information Sheet); 1.981 (Satisfaction of Judgment); 1.982 (Contempt Notice); and 1.997 (Civil Cover Sheet). The Committee proposes new rules 1.020 (Privacy and Court Records) and 1.451 (Taking Testimony). The Committee also proposes amendments to the Uniform Guidelines on Taxation of Costs. Consistent with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.140(b)(2), the Committee published the proposals for comment before filing them with the Court. The Committee made no changes in response to the two comments it received. The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar unanimously approved the proposals. After the proposals were filed, the Court published them for comment. Two comments were filed with the Court, one in support of the amendments to rule 1.630 (Extraordinary Remedies) and another suggesting extensive revisions to the Committee’s proposal concerning rule 1.490 (Magistrates). The Committee filed a response to the comments. The Committee also filed a supplemental petition proposing an additional amendment to rule 1.490.

AMENDMENTS

The majority of the Committee’s proposals are straightforward, and no comments were filed opposing them. We adopt those proposals without further discussion. We discuss only new rule 1.451 (Taking Testimony) and the amendments to rules 1.442 [644]*644(Proposals for Settlement) and 1.490 (Magistrates), which we also adopt as proposed.

A majority of the Committee members urge the Court to delete the rule 1.442(c)(2)(B) (Form and Content of Proposal for Settlement) requirement that the proposal for settlement “identify the claim or claims the proposal is attempting to resolve” and replace it with the requirement that the proposal “state that [it] resolves all damages that would otherwise be awarded in a final judgment in the action,” subject to the provision in the rule governing attorney fees. The majority of the Committee determined that the amendment was needed to curtail partial proposals for settlement and to comport with section 768.79(2), Florida Statutes (2012), which states, in pertinent part, that “[t]he offer [to settle] shall be construed as including all damages which could be awarded in a final judgment.” Although the Committee reported that a minority of its members are of the view that the rule should not be changed without clarification from the Legislature or the courts, we defer to the majority view and amend the rule as proposed.

New rule 1.451 (Taking Testimony), which we adopt as proposed, authorizes a court to permit testimony at a civil hearing or trial by audio or video communication equipment by agreement of the parties or for good cause shown on written request of a party and reasonable notice to all other parties. The Committee proposed the new civil procedure rule in response to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.530 (Communication Equipment), which permits a court to allow testimony to be taken through communication equipment if all the parties consent or if permitted by another applicable rule of procedure.

In 2011, at the urging of the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, the Court amended rule 2.530 to allow testimony to be taken by communication equipment without the parties’ consent “if permitted by another applicable rule of procedure.” See In re Amend. Fla. Rules of Jud. Admin., 73 So.3d 210, 211 (Fla.2011). That amendment was intended to “allow the various Florida Bar rules committees to consider whether their bodies of rules should be amended to allow for the use of communication equipment without the parties’ consent.” Id. According to the report in this case, when drafting new rule 1.451, the Committee was mindful of the need for consistency with rule 2.530. The Committee also addressed the need to provide guidance to the court by adding a committee note to the rule that offers factors the court may consider in determining whether good cause exists to permit testimony by audio or video equipment over objection.

Finally, we adopt the proposed amendments to rule 1.490 (Magistrates), which governs appointment of magistrates in civil cases. According to the Committee report, the amendments are intended to make the civil rule more consistent with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.257 and Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.490, which govern the appointment of magistrates in juvenile and family law cases. The requirement in rule 1.490 that “[u]nless otherwise ordered by the court, all hearings must be held in the courthouse of the county where the action is pending” is deleted. As proposed in the supplemental petition, the words “in writing” are deleted from the sentence in newly-designated subdivision (g) that governs the taking of evidence at the hearing. This amendment is consistent with the use of electronic recording of the proceedings. As amended, rule 1.490 now requires exceptions to the magistrate’s report to be filed rather than served. Various requirements also are added to the rule for: (1) [645]*645the notice of hearing concerning the use of electronic recording or court reporting to create the record; (2) the magistrate’s report; (3) cross-exceptions to the magistrate’s report; and (4) the record needed to support a party’s exceptions to the magistrate’s report.

According to the report, the Committee proposed some of the amendments at the suggestion of Robert J. Jones, General Magistrate in the Eleventh Circuit (Miami-Dade County). Mr. Jones also filed comments with both the Committee and the Court and participated in discussions with Committee members regarding his suggested extensive revisions to the Committee’s proposals. According to the Committee’s response filed with the Court, the Committee considered but rejected Mr. Jones’ proposed total rewrite of rule 1.490 to mirror Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure 12.490 (General Magistrates) and 12.492 (Special Magistrates), choosing instead to make a number of measured improvements to the notice, record, report, and exception provisions of rule 1.490. The Committee determined that the limited use of magistrates in cases governed by the civil procedure rules suggests that there is no need for uniformity in the treatment of magistrates across the different sets of procedural rules. Therefore, the Committee urges against the “wholesale” revisions suggested by Mr. Jones.

After considering the Committee’s proposals, Mr. Jones’ suggested revisions, and the Committee’s response, we defer to the Committee and adopt its more measured changes to rule 1.490. However, we thank both the Committee members and Mr. Jones for their efforts to improve the civil procedure rules pertaining to magistrates.

CONCLUSION

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

Related

Mrs. S. Gold v. RK Associates 2, Inc.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2026
BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS, L L C v. ALBERT B. CASSIDY
242 So. 3d 456 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Artemio Milares Bucsit, Former Husband v. Marie Jean Camara Bucsit, Former Wife
229 So. 3d 430 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
American Home Assurance Co. v. D'Agostino
211 So. 3d 63 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
PLCA Condominium Association v. Amtrust-NP SFR Venture, LLC
182 So. 3d 668 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Edgar v. Firuta
165 So. 3d 758 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Gilliard v. Gilliard
162 So. 3d 1147 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
In Re AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
159 So. 3d 838 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2015)
In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES—REPORT NO. 2014-02
156 So. 3d 1047 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2015)
In Re AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE
156 So. 3d 493 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2015)
Patel v. U.S. Bank National Association
159 So. 3d 156 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Central Mortgage Company v. Callahan
155 So. 3d 373 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Redd v. Justice Administrative, Commission
140 So. 3d 1085 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Helmich v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
136 So. 3d 763 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
131 So. 3d 643, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 836, 2013 WL 6164572, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 2476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-rules-of-civil-procedure-fla-2013.