TRUST REAL ESTATE VENTURES, LLC, ETC., ET AL.,
v.
JAMES DESNICK, ET AL.,
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.
The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment, holding that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the denial of a continuance for pending discovery was an abuse of discretion. The court emphasized that parties must show diligence and materiality of sought discovery to warrant a continuance.
No, the lower court did not err in granting summary judgment. The appellants failed to demonstrate that the denial of the continuance was an abuse of discretion, as they had adequate opportunity for discovery and any further discovery was unlikely to yield material facts.
[1] A trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion for continuance is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, requiring a gross or flagrant abuse to be demonstrated by the c…
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance of a summary judgment hearing when the non-moving party had an adequate opportunity for discovery and…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The granting or denying of a motion for continuance is within the discretion of the trial judge and a gross or flagrant abuse of this discretion must be demonstrated by the complaining party before this court will substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge.”
Establishes the standard of review for denial of a continuance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants contended that the lower tribunal erred by granting final summary judgment while discovery depositions were still pending. They argued …
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 Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review) cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLER, J.
Appellants contend the lower tribunal improvidently granted final summary judgment in favor of appellee, in light of pending discovery depositions. “The granting or denying of a motion for continuance is within the discretion of the trial judge and a gross or flagrant abuse of this discretion must be demonstrated by the complaining party before this court will substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge.” Stern v. Four Freedoms Nat’l Med. Servs., Co., 417 So. 2d 1085, 1086 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (citation omitted).
Having carefully reviewed the record before us, it is clear that appellants “had an adequate opportunity to engage in discovery and . . . any further discovery was not likely to present any material facts relevant to the trial court’s disposition of the issues.” Barco Holdings, LLC v. Terminal Inv. Corp., 967 So. 2d 281, 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).
Thus, appellants have failed to demonstrate that the denial of the continuance was “arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable . . . [or that] no reasonable man [or woman] would take the view adopted by the trial court,” and we conclude that summary judgment was not premature. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980) (citation omitted); see Vancelette v. Boulan S. Beach Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 229 So. 3d 398, 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“Absent a non-moving party's demonstration of diligence, good faith, and the materiality of the discovery sought to be completed, a trial court cannot be faulted for denying a motion to continue a long-scheduled hearing on the motions for summary judgment.”) (citations omitted); Crespo v. Fla. Entm’t Direct Support
Org., Inc., 674 So. 2d 154, 155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (“A trial court has the discretion to deny a continuance of a summary judgment hearing where the outstanding discovery items are immaterial to the dispositive issues in the case.”) (citations omitted); see also Carbonell v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 675 So. 2d 705, 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (“A party seeking a continuance bears the burden of showing, by affidavit, the existence and availability of other evidence, its relevance, the efforts taken to produce it, and that any failure to do so is not the result of the movant's inexcusable delay.”) (citing DeMesme v. Stephenson, 498 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(f)). Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment under review. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Temnikova v. E. Fin. Mortg. Corp., 306 So. 3d 1044 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
-
Amalia Freire v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 386 So. 3d 995 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Darius DeMESME v. Sam E. Stephenson, Jr., M.D., 498 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Carbonell v. Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc., 675 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Stern v. Four Freedoms Nat'l Med. Servs., 417 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Barco Holdings, LLC v. Terminal Inv. Corp., 967 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- Al Crespo v. Fla. Ent. Direct Support Org., Inc., 674 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Vancelette v. Boulan S. Beach Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 229 So. 3d 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)