Paul Rohart v. International Keys Realty, LLC, etc.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: May 1, 2024
• Docket: 2023-0587
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May 1, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0587 Lower Tribunal No. 19-126-P ________________

Paul Rohart, Appellant,

vs.

International Keys Realty, LLC, etc., et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Timothy J. Koenig, Judge.

Kelsky Law, P.A., and Brad E. Kelsky (Plantation), for appellant.

Behren Law Firm, and Scott M. Behren, (Weston), for appellee International Keys Realty, LLC.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See In re Amends. to Fla. R. of Civ. Proc. 1.510, 317 So. 3d

72, 74 (Fla. 2021) (revising summary judgment rule to mirror federal

summary judgment standard); In re Amends. to Fla. R. of Civ. Proc. 1.510,

309 So. 3d 192, 193 (Fla. 2020) (approvingly refencing the United States

Supreme Court’s explanation that “[w]hen opposing parties tell two different

stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no

reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the

facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment”) (quoting

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007)); see also Velasquez v. Cardinal

Health 414 LLC, No. 20-CIV-60402, 2021 WL 2493087, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jun.

18, 2021) (adopting report and recommendation granting summary judgment

for defendant, explaining that “[t]he problem for Plaintiff is that even crediting

that testimony, she failed to point to evidence in the record that would support

her claims”); Rural Int’l Bank Ltd. v. Key Fin. Inv. Grp. LLC, No. 16-22280-

Civ, 2017 WL 5891463, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2017) (“[A] party's

uncorroborated self-serving testimony cannot prevent summary judgment,

particularly if the overwhelming documentary evidence supports the opposite

scenario.”) (quoting Vinewood Cap., LLC v. Dar Al-Maal Al-Islami Tr., 541 F.

App'x 443, 447 (5th Cir. 2013)); In re Trasylol Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 08–

MD–1928, 2010 WL 6098570, at *8 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 8, 2010) (“Plaintiff

2 provides no legal basis for the proposition that a plaintiff’s self-serving

testimony is sufficient to counter record evidence so as to create a triable

issue of fact precluding summary judgment.”).