Where did you get that?

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 50 NUMBER 42

CASES FROM THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 24, 2025

SUMMARY JUDGMENTS MAY ONLY BE GRANTED WHEN THE EVIDENCE IS SUCH THAT A REASONABLE JURY COULD RETURN A VERDICT FOR THE NON-MOVING PARTY AND THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN AUTHENTICATED

Sanz v. Herrera, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2253 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 15, 2025):

In a case with no facts, the court addressed some important standards in the consideration of a motion for summary judgment.

A dispute is ‘genuine’ when the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Conversely, if the evidence is merely colorable or lacks significant probative value, summary judgment may be granted.

Also, a party cannot simply attach unsworn or unauthenticated documents to a motion for summary judgment to satisfy the procedural requirements of Rule 1.510(e). Only competent evidence may be considered by the court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. A document attached to a motion for summary judgment or document attached to an affidavit that is not otherwise authenticated is not considered competent evidence.

COURT STRIKES AWARD FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES BASED ON BLOCK BILLING AND VAGUE AND DUPLICATIVE ENTRIES

Nova Southeastern v. Garrett-Callahan Co., 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2247 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 15, 2025):

This case arose from breach of contract and professional negligence claims against an engineering company. There were multiple defendants. Based on entitlement from nonbinding arbitration, the plaintiff sought attorneys’ fees against the remaining defendant.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the claims against the defendants were not inextricably intertwined to allow for the award of attorneys’ fees.

However, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s attorneys’ fee awards based on block billing, duplicative billing and vague entries. The plaintiff’s  fee expert conceded that reductions were warranted, recommending a 10% reduction for block billing and a 5% reduction for vague and duplicative entries.

The appellate court reversed, concluding that a random, blanket percentage reduction was insufficient and required reversal. The court remanded for reconsideration of the fee award based on the specific hours billed and the sufficiency of the work descriptions.

THERE CANNOT BE AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT IN CASES INVOLVING BOTH MONETARY DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF — THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF SECTION 768.79 APPLIES ONLY TO CIVIL ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES

Cornelius v. Haywood, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2250 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 15, 2025):

In an action seeking both monetary damages and equitable relief, the plaintiff served an offer of judgment addressing only the monetary claim. Following trial, the jury found against the plaintiff on her defamation and negligent reporting claims and further found on the counterclaim that she had not unduly influenced the decedent who transferred assets prior to his death.

The trial court denied the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs because the action contained equitable claims. The plaintiff asked the court to hold that Section 768.79 applies in cases involving both equitable and monetary claims, so long as the proposal is directed solely to the monetary damages claim.

Applying the supremacy of the text principle, the court interpreted section 768.79 according to its plain language. That principle recognizes that the governing text’s words are paramount and mean what they convey in context.

The statute clearly states that it applies to a civil action for damages without any mention of equitable relief. Thus, it does not apply to claims for equitable relief, and the plaintiff could not avail herself of Section 768.79, because the defendant’s counterclaim asserting both an equitable and monetary claim was not encompassed within the plain language of the statute.

Therefore, even though the proposal did not attempt to settle the equitable claim, the reach of Section 768.79 did not extend to a pending case where the parties sought both monetary and equitable damages, and courts are not at liberty to add words to a statute when the legislature has not expressly included them.

ERROR TO ENTER FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT WHERE THERE WERE MATERIAL ISSUES AS TO WHETHER OVERGROWN FOLIAGE ON THE DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY OBSTRUCTED THE VIEW OF THE INTERSECTION WHERE THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN VIOLATION OF LOCAL ORDINANCES AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Baird v. Beyer Holdings, LLC, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2256 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 15, 2025):