Go ahead and serve em all

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 51 NUMBER 2

CASES FROM THE WEEK OF JANUARY 16, 2026

THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT ADOPTS AMENDMENTS REQUIRING THAT PARTIES SERVE RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ON ALL OTHER PARTIES IN THE CASE (AS OF APRIL 1, 2026, AT 12:01 A.M.)

IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.350 AND 1.370 51 Fla. L. Weekly S27 (Fla. Jan. 15, 2026):

The Florida Supreme Court adopted amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.350 and 1.370, as proposed by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, with modifications. The amendments require service on all parties of (1) requests for production and responses (the requests and responses themselves, not the produced documents) and (2) requests for admission and responses. The Court set the effective date as April 1, 2026.

THE THIRD DISTRICT REVERSED A DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER WHERE THE TRIAL COURT MADE NO FINDING OF WILLFUL NONCOMPLIANCE AND WHERE THE “WITHOUT PREJUDICE” DISMISSAL FUNCTIONED AS WITH PREJUDICE BECAUSE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN

Rodriguez v. Bryant Permit Service, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D63 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 7, 2026):

Rodriguez sued Bryant Permit Service for breach of contract and, alternatively, for a violation of FDUTPA, and defaults were entered. The county court later ordered the plaintiff to take action toward a default final judgment within 30 days and warned the case would be dismissed if she did not. When plaintiff’s counsel filed no motion, the court dismissed the case without prejudice.

The Third District reversed. It reiterated that dismissal for failure to comply with a court order is the most severe sanction, and upon review of the Kozel factors, did not find any of willful noncompliance. The court also emphasized that although the court noted that the dismissal was “without prejudice,” it operated as being with prejudice because the statute of limitations had run, requiring the court to weigh counsel’s failings against the consequence of ending the client’s case. The court concluded that dismissal under these facts was wrong, and remanded with directions to vacate the dismissal and proceed.

THE THIRD DISTRICT AFFIRMED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGES BUT REVERSED IN PART AS TO ECONOMIC DAMAGES WHERE THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY REQUIRED A SHOWING OF “MALICIOUS CONDUCT” FOR AN ECONOMIC DAMAGES THEORY BASED ON ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 497

Molinet v. Van Orsdel Family Funeral Chapels, Inc., 51 Fla. L. Weekly D84 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 7, 2026)

A man died in a hospital. He was survived by two adult children and his sister, but his ex-wife was listed as his next of kin. She did not respond when the hospital called to tell her the man—who had been living a transient lifestyle, and had lived in a facility for alcohol and substance abuse—had died.

The hospital ultimately transferred the man’s remains to a funeral home, because it had run out of room in its morgue. The defendant funeral home stored him in an overflow refrigeration unit after having been transported by a third party in a non-refrigerated truck, in the same material he was in when he died. A private investigator the survivors hired finally tracked him down there. When the survivors asked the defendant to transfer the body, it advised that it was not presentable enough after two months of storage, and that he should be cremated.

The plaintiffs sued a funeral home on claims including tortious interference with a dead body and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial court entered summary judgment for the funeral home.

The Third District affirmed the summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claims for non-economic emotional distress damages, concluding that the record did not support the type of wanton, malicious, or outrageous conduct required for that recovery.

However, the court did reverse as to the plaintiffs’ economic damages theory, which was premised on alleged violations of the Florida Funeral, Cemetery, and Consumer Services Act (Chapter 497). The trial court had erroneously required a showing of “malicious conduct” for the economic damages, which the Third District held was error, and it remanded for the trial court to determine whether there was a genuine issue of material fact on the alleged statutory violations.