TONY SIEGLER vs EMPIRE DAWN, LLC AND DOUGLAS SMEJKAL

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: April 8, 2022
• Docket: 21-1920
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

TONY SIEGLER,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D21-1920 LT Case No. 2019-CA-058909

EMPIRE DAWN, LLC AND DOUGLAS SMEJKAL,

Appellees. ________________________________/

Opinion filed April 8, 2022 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Curt Jacobus, Judge.

Nicholas A. Vidoni, of Vidoni Law PLLC, Cocoa, for Appellant.

Dwight J. Rhodeback and Warren W. Dill, of Dill, Evans & Rhodeback, Sebastian, for Appellee, Empire Dawn, LLC.

No Appearance for Other Appellee.

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.510, 317

So. 3d 72, 75, 77 (Fla. 2021) (providing that “new rule” 1.510 takes effect on

May 1, 2021, and governs the adjudication of any summary judgment motion

decided on or after that date, with the correct test to be applied by the trial

courts in determining if there exists a genuine factual dispute being “whether

‘the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the

nonmoving party’”); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c)(5) (stating that “[a]t least 20 days

before the time fixed for the [summary judgment] hearing, the nonmovant

must serve a response [to the motion for summary judgment] that includes

the nonmovant’s supporting factual position as provided in subdivision (1)

above”); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(e)(2)–(3) (providing that if a party fails to

properly address another party’s assertion of fact as required by rule 1.510(c),

the court may “consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion” or

may “grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials—

including the facts considered undisputed—show that the movant is entitled

to it”); Boudot v. Boudot, 925 So. 2d 409, 416 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“[C]ourts

generally do not find excusable neglect based on the attorney’s

misunderstanding or ignorance of the . . . rules of procedure.”).

LAMBERT, C.J., COHEN and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.