Civil Procedures
Civil Litigation 8th Edition, from Peggy Kerley (Author), Joanne Banker Hames (Author), Paul Sukys, J.D. (Author)
ISBN: 978-1-3377-9883-9
Post One
Choose one Civil Procedure Rule from your state.
Then find the same rule, but in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Discuss the differences and similarities between the two.
Civil Procedures
Primary sources of law, such as civil procedures, may be found in either Federal or State Rules. If a case is tried at the federal level, then the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures will be applied (Kerley et al., 2014). Otherwise, if a case is tried within the state court, then the state’s civil procedures will be used to control (Kerley et al., 2014). It is quite common to find similar rules within the Federal and State Rules of Civil Procedures. These rules may have similarities, but it is also expected that differences will appear. The USCS Fed Rules Civ Proc R 56, Part 1 of 5 (Federal Rule), and the Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510 (Florida Rules of Civil Procedures are two examples of the same rule in both procedures. The two rules focus on summary judgment, which is the event a court enters a judgment of one party against another to avoid unnecessary trials.
There are similarities with the Florida State and Federal Civil Procedure rules on Summary Judgement. Both give the parties the options to file for summary judgment after a stated period since the close of all discovery. Facts are essential to filing to summary judgment, and both rules consider the issue of unavailability of facts to the nonmovant (Muniz, 2018). The State and Federal rules give the court the option of either refuse the presented affidavit, allow the continuance of affidavit presentation or make such other order. Despite having such similarities among others, the Florida State Court has received numerous complaints to change their summary judgment. According to Logue and Soto (2002), the rulings in Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986), Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), and Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986), have brought about differences between the supreme and Florida state courts concerning the matter.
The differences between the two laws emanate from the standards for reviewing summary judgment motions. The Florida court refuses to recognize the difference between a motion for a direct verdict and that for summary judgment. In Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), the Supreme court held that the party moving for summary judgment need only show that the other party lacked enough evidence for their case (Szematowicz, 2020). Rule 56(c)(1) of the Federal Rules requires a movant to support their assertion by citing available material. The Florida Civil Procedure Rule 1.510 (e), however, requires the movant to produce affidavits as admissible evidence. Florida, therefore, lays a burden on the movant, which then delays the case. The Supreme Court overcame this hurdle by requiring the non-movant party to prove itself based on the moving party’s citations.
In conclusion, the differences and similarities of the Federal and State Civil Procedures make up the primary sources upon which cases are decided. As much as both Civil Procedures may exhibit similar issues, the rules may differ, as seen in the topic of summary judgment on the Federal and Florida sources. Sometimes, states may enforce restrictive standards despite amendments at the state level. Florida requires movants to prove a negative while the federal court leaves that burden to the nonmoving party. Hopefully, the Florida courts will soon consider a way to amend their rules hence defining their confusion for direct trial and motion for summary judgment.
References
Muniz, M. (2018). The Seemingly “Magical Aura” of exhibits when Attached to a Pleading Under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The Florida Bar journal, 92(3). 28. Retrieved from https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-seemingly-magical-aura-of-exhibits-when-attached-to-a-pleading-under-the-florida-rules-of-civil-procedure/
Logue, T., & Soto, J. A. (2002). Florida Should Adopt The Celotex Standard for Summary Judgments. Florida Bar Journal, 76(2), 20-28.
Kerley, P., Joanne Banker Hames, J. D., & Paul Sukys, J. D. (2014). Civil litigation. Nelson Education.
Szematowicz, C. (2020). Motions for Summary Judgement and Judgement on the Pleadings. Retrieved from https://www.stpetelawgroup.com/motions-for-summary-judgment-and-judgment-on-the-pleadings/
