Torres v. MK TOURS, INC.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Torres v. MK TOURS, INC.

10 So. 3d 672, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3416, 2009 WL 1066056

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 22, 2009

Docket3D08-1965

StatusPublished

This text of 10 So. 3d 672 (Torres v. MK TOURS, INC.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Torres v. MK TOURS, INC., 10 So. 3d 672, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3416, 2009 WL 1066056 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

SUAREZ, J.

Carlos and Ines Torres (“Torreses”), Personal Representatives of the Estate of Jasmine Torres, appeal a final summary judgment in favor of MK Tours, Inc., entered upon an order denying the Torreses’ motion for continuance. We reverse the final summary judgment in favor of MK Tours, Inc., on grounds that the trial judge abused her discretion in denying the motion for continuance.

We find as well-taken the Torreses’ contention on appeal that, because discovery was provided late and they did not learn until approximately two months before the summary judgment hearing that MK Tours had destroyed documentary evidence allegedly subject to production, a continuance of the hearing on summary judgment was needed to complete- discovery on the issue of the alleged duty to warn. 1 See Erace v. Erace, 683 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (concluding that summary judgment is premature prior to plaintiffs completion of discovery), and cases cited therein.

We therefore remand the cause to the trial court for the purpose of allowing the Torreses the opportunity to complete discovery.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

1

. We do not address the merits of the issue of the alleged duty to warn.

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

SUAREZ, J.

Carlos and Ines Torres (“Torreses”), Personal Representatives of the Estate of Jasmine Torres, appeal a final summary judgment in favor of MK Tours, Inc., entered upon an order denying the Torreses’ motion for continuance. We reverse the final summary judgment in favor of MK Tours, Inc., on grounds that the trial judge abused her discretion in denying the motion for continuance.

We find as well-taken the Torreses’ contention on appeal that, because discovery was provided late and they did not learn until approximately two months before the summary judgment hearing that MK Tours had destroyed documentary evidence allegedly subject to production, a continuance of the hearing on summary judgment was needed to complete- discovery on the issue of the alleged duty to warn. 1 See Erace v. Erace, 683 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (concluding that summary judgment is premature prior to plaintiffs completion of discovery), and cases cited therein.

We therefore remand the cause to the trial court for the purpose of allowing the Torreses the opportunity to complete discovery.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

1

. We do not address the merits of the issue of the alleged duty to warn.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 So. 3d 672, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3416, 2009 WL 1066056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torres-v-mk-tours-inc-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack