Florida permits summary judgment under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510, and since May 1, 2021, courts apply the same standard used in federal court under the Celotex trilogy: judgment is warranted when no genuine dispute of material fact exists and no reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party. Movants and their opponents must also track strict timing windows for serving motions, factual positions, and responses. The practical upshot is that summary judgment now works far better in Florida than it did before 2021, but only if the nonmovant fails to produce specific, admissible evidence creating a real factual dispute.

---

TL;DR:

• Florida now applies the federal summary judgment standard, requiring no genuine dispute of material fact for judgment when the record lacks specific admissible evidence.
• Strict timing rules demand motions and factual positions be served with precise record citations at least 40 days before the response, with a 7-day reply deadline.
• The revised rule shifts the burden to the nonmovant to produce specific evidence, not just argue that a factual dispute exists, making motions easier to grant.
• Evidence must be properly authenticated and admissible, with affidavits needing personal knowledge; unsupported or conclusory affidavits can be struck.
• Effective opposition focuses on pinpointing record contradictions, raising evidentiary issues immediately, and submitting a supporting factual position with clear citations.

---

Table of Contents

• What Does Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510 Actually Say?
• When Are the Filing Deadlines for a Motion?
• How Does the Federal Standard Change Who Has to Prove What?
• What Counts as Valid Summary Judgment Evidence?
• How Do You Build a Winning Opposition?
• Practitioner Checklist: Deciding When to Move for Summary Judgment
• What Mistakes Sink Otherwise Strong Motions?
• A Litigator’s Take on Florida’s New Summary Judgment Standard
• How Fornarolegal Helps With Summary Judgment Strategy
• Sources

What Does Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510 Actually Say?

Rule 1.510(a) authorizes a party to move for summary judgment on a claim, defense, or any part of either, “at any time.” Subdivision © sets the operative standard: the court “shall grant” the motion if the movant shows there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That single sentence replaced decades of Florida case law built around a much stricter test.

Before May 2021, Florida courts denied summary judgment if the record raised even the “slightest doubt” that a factual issue might exist. The Florida Supreme Court scrapped that approach in SC20-1490, adopting the federal summary judgment standard from Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986), and Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986). The court explained that the old Florida standard had made summary judgment too hard to obtain, clogging trial dockets with cases that had no real chance of a plaintiff’s or defendant’s verdict.

The amendment did more than swap out a legal test. It rewrote how courts must explain their rulings. Under the current rule, a judge granting or denying summary judgment must state the reasons on the record, either in writing or orally. That requirement matters more than it looks. It forces trial judges to identify exactly which facts they treated as disputed (or undisputed), which gives appellate panels something concrete to review instead of a bare “motion denied” order.

The committee notes accompanying the 2021 amendment flag several practical points worth keeping on a checklist:

• A party may move for partial summary judgment on liability alone, even when damages remain contested, letting a case proceed to trial on a narrower set of issues.
• Summary judgment can be granted independent of the motion itself. A court may enter judgment for the nonmovant, or on grounds not raised by the parties, after giving notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond.
• The rule specifies which materials the court may consider: depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits, declarations, admissions, interrogatory answers, and other materials in the record.
• Committee notes emphasize that the standard mirrors Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, so federal case law interpreting that rule carries persuasive weight in Florida courts.

The Florida Bar Journal’s primer on the new standard walks through why the change matters for practice: it shifts the analytical question from “is there any doubt at all” to “could a reasonable jury actually rule for the other side.” That’s a meaningfully lower bar for movants, and a meaningfully higher one for parties trying to survive a motion on speculation alone.

When Are the Filing Deadlines for a Motion?

Rule 1.510’s timing provisions are unforgiving, and missing one can sink an otherwise strong motion. Here’s how the calendar actually runs:

1. Motion and supporting factual position. The movant files the motion along with a supporting factual position that cites specific record evidence for each material fact. This isn’t optional boilerplate. The rule requires pinpoint citations, not a general reference to “the record as a whole.”
2. 40-day response window. The nonmovant then has 40 days after service of the motion to serve a response, including its own supporting (or opposing) factual position with record citations.
3. 7-day reply deadline. If the movant wants to reply, that reply is due at least 7 days before the scheduled hearing.
4. 10-day hearing buffer. The court must set the hearing no earlier than 10 days after the deadline for the nonmovant’s response, unless the parties agree otherwise or the court orders a different schedule.

These windows come straight from the rule’s text on timing and service mechanics, and they interact with Florida’s general service rules under Rule 2.516, which govern electronic service and how deadlines are computed when documents go out through the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal.

Back-scheduling matters more here than in most motion practice. Say you want a hearing on March 30. Working backward, the nonmovant’s response would need to be due by March 20, meaning you’d have needed to serve your motion and supporting factual position by around February 8 to leave the full 40 days. Miss that window and you’re either pushing the hearing date or risking a court striking a late-filed factual position.

Pro Tip: Build your internal deadline calendar off the response date, not the hearing date. Litigators who calendar backward from the hearing sometimes miscount the 40-day window when weekends or court holidays fall in the mix. Calendar forward from the day you serve the motion, then confirm your hearing date has at least a 10-day cushion after that.

A short pre-filing checklist avoids most self-inflicted wounds:

• Confirm the supporting factual position cites to specific record pages, not general categories of evidence.
• Verify service method and date under Rule 2.516, since electronic service timing can shift response deadlines.
• Calendar the reply deadline at 7 days before hearing, and diary a reminder 3 days earlier to finish drafting.
• Check the hearing date against the local judge’s motion calendar rules. Many Broward and Palm Beach circuit judges require additional lead time beyond the rule’s floor.

How Does the Federal Standard Change Who Has to Prove What?

The federal standard didn’t just relax the legal test. It reshuffled who carries the burden and when. Under the old Florida approach, movants often had to affirmatively disprove the nonmovant’s case, a heavy lift that made summary judgment rare in anything but the cleanest documentary disputes.

Celotex changed that calculus. A movant can now satisfy its initial burden either by producing affirmative evidence negating an essential element of the opposing claim, or simply by pointing to an absence of evidence supporting that element, provided adequate time for discovery has passed. That second path is the one Florida practitioners underused for years, since it didn’t exist under the “slightest doubt” regime. The Stetson practitioner guide walks through exactly how that showing works: once the movant flags the gap, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to come forward with specific facts showing a genuine dispute exists.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby supplies the substantive test everyone now cites: could a reasonable jury, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, return a verdict in that party’s favor? If the answer is no, summary judgment is proper regardless of how many pages of argument the nonmovant files. Matsushita adds a gloss for cases built on inference rather than direct evidence, holding that when the nonmovant’s theory makes no economic sense or is contradicted by the record, the nonmovant needs more than a plausible story. It needs specific facts that actually support the inference it’s asking the jury to draw.

That trio maps onto recurring fact patterns in Florida business litigation:

• An essential element the plaintiff simply cannot prove. A breach-of-contract claim where the plaintiff has no evidence of damages beyond speculation is a strong candidate for a Celotex-style motion pointing to the evidentiary void.
• Testimony blatantly contradicted by video, documents, or a contemporaneous record. Courts applying the federal standard don’t have to credit a witness’s version of events when it’s directly refuted by unambiguous documentary evidence.
• Document-driven claims where the contract language resolves the dispute. Interpretation of an unambiguous contract term is a question of law, which makes these strong summary judgment candidates regardless of how many factual disputes swirl around peripheral issues.

The gap between old and new Florida practice is the mindset shift, not just the citation. Attorneys trained under the “slightest doubt” era sometimes still argue as if any factual wrinkle defeats the motion. That argument doesn’t work anymore. The question isn’t whether some doubt exists; it’s whether a jury could reasonably act on it.

What Counts as Valid Summary Judgment Evidence?

Rule 1.510© lists the record materials a court may rely on: pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, affidavits, declarations, and electronically stored information such as emails, text messages, and business databases. The rule also allows any “other materials” the parties stipulate the court can consider, giving some flexibility for unusual evidence like expert reports or third-party business records.

Not every piece of paper you attach to a motion counts. Affidavits and declarations must be made on personal knowledge, must set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and must show the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated. A conclusory affidavit that just repeats the legal standard, without underlying factual detail, invites a motion to strike and can leave a party without any record support at all.

Opposing counsel will typically attack summary judgment evidence on a handful of predictable grounds:

• Hearsay. An affidavit relaying what someone else said, offered to prove the truth of that statement, is vulnerable unless an exception applies.
• Lack of personal knowledge. Corporate representatives sometimes sign affidavits about events they didn’t witness firsthand; that’s an easy target for a motion to strike.
• Missing foundation for documents. A spreadsheet or email chain attached without an authenticating affidavit or deposition testimony laying the foundation can be excluded before the court ever reaches the merits.
• Improper legal conclusions. Affidavits that argue the ultimate legal issue, rather than stating facts, get little weight even when the court doesn’t formally strike them.

Pro Tip: Don’t wait until your reply brief to shore up shaky affidavits. If you know an affidavit is thin on personal knowledge or missing a business-records foundation, file a supplemental affidavit before the response deadline closes. Courts are far more forgiving of a timely fix than a last-minute scramble at the hearing.

On the filing side, cite to specific record pages in your supporting factual position rather than attaching a stack of exhibits and gesturing at them generally. For electronically stored information, authenticate metadata (timestamps, sender and recipient fields, chain of custody for text messages) up front, since courts increasingly scrutinize digital evidence for tampering or selective editing before treating it as competent proof. If a key document surfaces late in discovery, address it through a supplemental factual position rather than dropping it into the reply, where courts frequently decline to consider new evidence.

How Do You Build a Winning Opposition?

Opposing a well-drafted summary judgment motion is not about arguing the equities. It’s about pointing the court to specific, admissible facts in the record that create a genuine dispute a jury could resolve either way. Vague assertions that “questions of fact remain” carry no weight under the current standard.

1. Identify the precise record citations that contradict the movant’s factual position. Match each disputed fact in the motion to a specific deposition page, document, or affidavit paragraph, rather than responding in generalities.
2. Address admissibility head-on. If the movant’s evidence has a hearsay or foundation problem, raise it in your response rather than saving it for oral argument, since the written record is what the appellate court will eventually review.
3. Frame credibility disputes explicitly as jury questions. Under Anderson, credibility determinations belong to the jury, not the judge, so highlight anywhere the motion asks the court to weigh competing witness accounts.
4. File your own supporting factual position, not just a response brief. The rule expects the nonmovant to submit a factual position with its own record citations, and skipping that step weakens your filing even if your legal argument is sound.
5. Ask for a statement of reasons if the court rules against you. Since judges must state their reasons on the record, a clear ruling gives your appellate counsel something concrete to challenge rather than a bare denial or grant.

Preserving the issue for appeal starts well before the hearing. Make sure every piece of evidence you want the appellate court to consider was actually before the trial judge at the time of the ruling. Materials filed after the hearing, absent a specific court order allowing supplementation, generally won’t be part of the record on review.

Practitioner Checklist: Deciding When to Move for Summary Judgment

Deciding whether to file at all is often the harder call than drafting the motion itself. A few situations tend to favor moving early and aggressively:

1. The case turns on a documentary record. Contract interpretation disputes, promissory note collections, and lease disputes where the operative language is unambiguous are strong candidates, since the court can resolve them as a matter of law.
2. An essential element is missing after discovery closes. If depositions and document production reveal the opposing party has no evidence of an essential element, such as damages or causation, a Celotex-style motion pointing to that gap can end the case.
3. The dispute is narrow enough to isolate. A motion targeting one clean legal issue, rather than trying to knock out an entire multi-count complaint, tends to draw a more favorable reception from the bench.

Holding off makes sense when discovery is incomplete, when the facts are genuinely contested and depend on witness credibility, or when the record is still developing key documents. Filing too early risks a denial that emboldens the opposing party and tips your legal theory before you’ve locked down the record.

Partial summary judgment deserves more attention than it typically gets in Florida business litigation. Rather than swinging for a full dismissal, target a discrete liability issue, such as whether a contract was validly formed or whether a personal guaranty is enforceable. Winning that narrow piece can collapse the other side’s negotiating position even when damages remain for trial. A defendant facing a partial summary judgment on liability often settles quickly once the only remaining question is the size of the check, not whether one gets written at all.

A rough 30/60/90-day motion-prep timeline for a mid-size commercial dispute looks like this:

• Days 1 to 30: Complete key depositions, confirm the documentary record is fully authenticated, and identify which elements of each claim or defense you can support without factual dispute.
• Days 31 to 60: Draft the motion and supporting factual position, cross-checking every factual assertion against a specific record citation, and circulate internally for a gap-check on evidentiary objections you’re likely to face.
• Days 61 to 90: File the motion, calendar the 40-day response window and hearing date, and prepare a reply strategy in advance so you’re not drafting from scratch once the opposition lands.

Pro Tip: If your case has one clean issue buried in a messy multi-count complaint, consider filing a motion aimed only at that issue rather than trying to dispose of the whole case. Judges are more receptive to focused motions, and a partial win still shifts settlement leverage even if the rest of the case proceeds to trial.

What Mistakes Sink Otherwise Strong Motions?

The most common failure isn’t a weak legal argument. It’s a procedural or evidentiary gap that gives the court an easy reason to deny the motion without ever reaching the merits. A few patterns show up again and again:

• Citing evidence that isn’t properly authenticated or admissible. A motion built on documents nobody has laid a foundation for collapses the moment opposing counsel files a motion to strike.
• Filing conclusory affidavits. Affidavits that recite the legal standard instead of specific facts add nothing to the record and can actually undercut the movant’s credibility with the court.
• Miscounting the timing windows. A late-served supporting factual position, or a hearing set before the 10-day buffer runs, invites a continuance or an outright denial on procedural grounds.
• Failing to preserve objections for appeal. If you don’t object to inadmissible evidence at the trial level, you generally can’t raise the objection for the first time on appeal.

Advising clients on the tradeoffs matters as much as the motion itself. Summary judgment carries real upside: it can end a case months or years faster than trial and cut legal spend dramatically. But a denied motion sometimes hands the other side a roadmap of your best arguments before trial even starts, and a poorly supported motion can damage credibility with the judge for the remainder of the case. Weigh the strength of the documentary record honestly before recommending the expense of full motion practice.

Appellate panels reviewing summary judgment rulings focus heavily on whether the trial court’s stated reasons actually track the record, a scrutiny that the Florida Bar Journal’s analysis notes was a deliberate design choice behind the 2021 amendment. A ruling with vague or boilerplate reasoning is more vulnerable on appeal than one that walks through each disputed fact and explains why no reasonable jury could rule the other way. Building an appeal-ready record means making sure every evidentiary objection, every record citation, and every argument you want preserved actually appears in the trial court filings, not just in oral argument that may or may not get transcribed in time.

A Litigator’s Take on Florida’s New Summary Judgment Standard

Most articles on this topic treat the 2021 amendment as a technical rule change. It’s really a strategic reset for how business disputes get resolved in Florida. Cases that used to limp toward a two-day trial over a contract term everyone could read in plain English now have a real shot at ending on paper, and that changes how early you should be thinking about summary judgment, not just how you draft the motion once discovery closes.

The biggest mistake I see is treating summary judgment as a late-stage cleanup tool instead of a strategy decision that should shape discovery from day one. If you know from the outset that a case will likely turn on whether a personal guaranty is enforceable, every deposition question and document request should be built to lock down that record early, not scrambled together after discovery closes. In one commercial dispute I worked on, a partial summary judgment motion targeting just the liability question, not damages, changed the settlement conversation within weeks. The other side had been negotiating as if trial was inevitable. Once liability was off the table as a contested issue, the only conversation left was about the number.

If you’re facing a filing deadline or think your case has a documentary record strong enough to support a motion, get counsel involved early enough to preserve the evidence properly, since a rushed record almost never survives close scrutiny.

— Matthew

How Fornarolegal Helps With Summary Judgment Strategy

A strong summary judgment record gets built long before a motion gets filed, and that’s where Fornarolegal fits into a South Florida business’s litigation strategy. Rather than treating summary judgment as an afterthought once discovery winds down, Clients work to lock down authenticated documents, well-drafted affidavits, and clean record citations from the earliest stages of a dispute, so the motion practice down the line has something solid to stand on.

Services relevant to summary judgment preparation include motion drafting grounded in the current federal standard, assembly and authentication of documentary and electronic evidence, and local counsel support for out-of-area attorneys handling Florida matters who need someone who knows the local rules and judges’ individual practice preferences. Before an initial consultation, bring the underlying contract or dispute documents, any relevant correspondence or communications, and a timeline of key events. If your dispute is still in its early stages, early legal guidance now can shape the evidentiary record you’ll rely on later, whether that record ends up supporting your own motion or defeating one filed against you. Reach out to schedule a consultation and start building a record that holds up under the current standard.

Sources

• SC20-1490 Opinion
• Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510 — Summary Judgment | Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
• A primer on Florida’s new summary judgment standard – The Florida Bar
• A New Practitioner’s Practical Guide to Summary Judgment

This article is general information, not a substitute for advice from a qualified lawyer. Consult a qualified legal professional about your own circumstances before acting on anything here.

Recommended

• What to Do When Your Business Is Sued: A Florida Owner’s Guide (2026)
• How to Collect a Judgment in Florida: A Business Owner’s Guide for 2026
• What to Do When Your Business Is Sued in Florida: A Strategic Guide for 2026
• Friday Afternoon Court Filings in Florida: A Litigation Strategy Explained