STEVE BRANDAUER, APPELLANT,
v.
PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., APPELLEE
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.
Brandauer appeals a summary judgment granted in favor of Publix in a slip-and-fall case. The court reversed, holding that summary judgment was entered prematurely because the plaintiff's discovery, including depositions of key Publix employees, had not yet been completed.
Summary judgment was improperly granted because discovery was still pending. A court should not enter summary judgment when the opposing party has not completed discovery, and the entry of judgment approximately six months after the complaint was filed, before Brandauer had deposed any corporate defendant representative, was premature under these circumstances.
[1] Summary judgment should not be granted until discovery is sufficiently complete to allow the court to be reasonably certain that no genuine issue of material fact exists.
[2] A court should not enter summary judgment when the opposing party has not completed discovery.
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“Summary judgment should not be granted until the facts have been sufficiently developed for the court to be reasonably certain that no genuine issue of material fact exists.”
Establishes the foundational standard for when summary judgment may be granted
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrandauer filed a slip-and-fall complaint against Publix on November 29, 1993. Publix took Brandauer's deposition and filed a motion for summary judgm…
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 Premature Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Steve Brandauer seeks review of the final summary judgment entered in favor of Pub-lix in his slip and fall action. We agree with his argument that the court granted summary judgment prematurely because discovery was still pending. Our reversal on this point makes it unnecessary for us to discuss Mr. Brandauer’s other two arguments on appeal, which address whether genuine issues of fact existed and whether the affidavit of Publix’s manager was sufficient to support summary judgment. Presumably, once Mr. Brandauer conducts, discovery, the factual record before the lower court will change.
Mr. Brandauer filed his complaint against Publix on November 29, 1993. Publix took his deposition, and on April 12,1994, filed its motion for summary judgment, attaching his deposition in support of the motion.
On April 15, 1994, Mr. Brandauer noticed the depositions of Publix’s manager, Mike Tanner, and another Publix employee for May 24, 1994. Publix filed Mr. Tanner’s affidavit in support of its motion for summary judgment on April 16, 1994. For reasons not apparent in the record, Mr. Brandauer filed an amended notice, changing the date of the depositions to June 1, 1994.
The trial court heard Publix’s motion on May 23, 1994, and entered summary judgment in its favor. Summary judgment should not be granted until the facts have been sufficiently developed for the court to be reasonably certain that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Singer v. Star, 510 So. 2d 637, 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
As a general rule, a court should not enter summary judgment when the opposing party has not completed discovery. Singer; Colby v. Ellis, 562 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
Here, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant approximately six months after the plaintiff filed suit. Mr. Brandauer had not yet deposed any representative of the corporate defendant. While we reiterate that a party does not have an unlimited right to discovery before a hearing on a motion for summary judgment, see Colby, we hold the entry of summary judgment under these facts was premature.
Publix argues that Mr. Brandauer never asked the court to continue the hearing until the deposition was taken. When an opponent of summary judgment is confronted with a hearing on the motion before he has completed discovery, he should file a motion for continuance. Mr. Brandauer did not file a written motion, but, at the hearing, his counsel asked the court to allow him to depose the store manager and come to a conclusion about whether he could go to trial. Counsel then noted “if the defendant feels that there is not enough evidence generated, they could renew their motion for summary judgment.” While it would have been better practice to file a written motion, or to specifically request a continuance at the hearing, we believe counsel’s comments adequately apprised the court that he wished to postpone the hearing until depositions had been taken.
Reversed and remanded.
SCHOONOVER and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
George Crowell, M.D. v. Barry Kaufmann, M.D., 845 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…ry that was material to the merits of the motion. Generally, it is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to grant summary judgment where the opposing party has not had an opportunity to complete discovery. Brandauer v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 657 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Under the circumstances presented in this case, entry of summary judgment was premature. Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment in favor of Dr. Kaufmann and remand for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded. CASANUEVA…
-
Lubarsky v. Sweden House Props. OF Boca Raton, Inc., 673 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…ermine if Sweden House executed its right of inspection or control as provided for in paragraph 9 of the lease between it and Worldly Ways. We find the following language from the second district’s opinion in Brandauer v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 657 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1995), instructive at bar: Summary judgment should not be granted until the facts have been sufficiently developed for the court to be reasonably certain that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Singer v. Star, 510 So. 2d 637, 6…
-
Fleet Fin. & Mortg., Inc. v. Carey, 707 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…that “a court should not enter summary judgment when the opposing party has not completed discovery.” Lubarsky v. Sweden House Properties of Boca Raton, Inc., 673 So. 2d 975, 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (quoting Brandauer v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 657 So. 2d 932, 933 (1995)). See also Sica v. Sam Caliendo Design, Inc., 623 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Moore v. Freeman, 396 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (trial court’s granting of summary judgment was premature where the opposing party, through no fault of…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Theresa Singer Ad Litem for Ann Doe v. Star, 510 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Colby v. Ellis, 562 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)