A & B PIPE AND SUPPLY CO., A & B UTILITY SUPPLIES, INC., AND A & B STEEL CO., APPELLANTS,
v.
TURNBERRY TOWERS CORP. AND TURNBERRY CORP., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A final summary judgment was entered prematurely when the plaintiffs had not completed discovery and the court had not ruled on their motion to compel.
[1] A summary judgment entered before a party has completed discovery is premature when that party, through no fault of its own, has not been able to depose opposing parties.
[2] A trial court's entry of summary judgment is improper when the court has not yet ruled on a pending motion to compel discovery.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs noticed defendants for depositions shortly before a summary judgment hearing. Defendants moved for a protective order and failed to appear …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Protective Order cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellants, plaintiffs below, question the correctness of a final summary judgment entered in favor of defendants. We reverse and remand upon the following briefly stated analysis.
Shortly after defendants filed their motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs no ticed defendants for depositions to be taken five days prior to the hearing on the motion. Defendants immediately moved for a protective order, requesting additional time to prepare to be deposed. On the date of the scheduled depositions, defendants failed to appear. Plaintiffs then moved for sanctions and/or to compel discovery, which motion, along with defendants’ motion for a protective order, was never ruled upon. Following the hearing, final summary judgment was entered for defendants.
It is plaintiffs’ position that their ability to defend against the summary judgment motion was thwarted by their inability to depose defendants.
We find merit in plaintiffs’ contention. In Commercial Bank of Kendall v. Heiman, 322 So. 2d 564, 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), we held that:
it was premature for the trial court to award the defendant a summary judgment when the plaintiff, through no fault of its own, had not completed its discovery.
In Cullen v. Big Daddy’s Lounges, Inc., 364 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), we relied upon Commercial Bank in reversing summary judgment for defendant, entered pri-or to plaintiffs’ completion of their discovery and where the court had not yet ruled upon plaintiffs’ motion to compel. See also Danna v. Bay Steel Corp., 445 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Moore v. Freeman, 396 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Lovelace v. Sobrino, 280 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).
The record in the instant case similarly discloses that the judgment appealed from was entered prematurely. We therefore have not considered the other points raised in this appeal. The final summary judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings, which may include further motions for summary judgment after discovery is completed.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spradley v. Doctor Michael O. Stick & Hamilton Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., 622 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…covery constituted an abuse of discretion. The general rule is that courts will be reluctant to grant a motion for summary judgment before the parties have had an opportunity to conduct discovery. A & B Pipe and Supply Co. v. Turnberry Towers Corp., 500 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Derosa v. Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinic, Inc., 468 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Cullen v. Big Daddy’s Lounges, Inc., 364 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). In the present case, because appellant, a prisoner, encountered diff…
-
Colby v. Ellis, 562 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…tion for summary judgment where the opposing party has not completed its discovery and there are discovery motions pending before the court. See Singer v. Star, 510 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); A & B Pipe and Supply Co. v. Turnberry Towers Corp., 500 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); DeRosa v. Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinic, Inc., 468 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). There comes a time, however, when discovery should end. A party does not have an unlimited right to discovery prior to a hearing on a motio…
-
Avila v. Pacindat Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass'n, Ltd., 528 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…before the plaintiff Pedro Luis Avila had a reasonable opportunity to complete his discovery on the jurisdictional issue in this cause. See Frankel v. City of Miami Beach, 340 So. 2d 463, 469 (Fla.1977); A & B Pipe & Supply Co. v. Turnberry Towers, 500 So. 2d 261, 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Moore v. Freeman, 396 So. 2d 276, 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Lovelace v. Sobrino, 280 So. 2d 514, 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); see also Unitech Corp. v. Atlantic Nat’l Bank, 472 So. 2d 817, 818 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); cf. Royal Netherla…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Commercial Bank OF Kendall v. Alana G. Heiman, 322 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Moore v. Freeman, 396 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Danna v. BAY Steel Corp. & Fla. Erection Serv., Inc., 445 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Lovelace v. Sobrino, 280 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Sheridan v. Woody Kaiser, 364 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Cullen v. BIG Daddy's Lounges, Inc., 364 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)