DOROTHY NATIELLO AND WILLIAM NATIELLO, APPELLANTS,
v.
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
In this slip-and-fall case, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment against plaintiffs Dorothy and William Natiello because the trial court abused its discretion by preventing plaintiffs' counsel from arguing the motion despite being only a few minutes late with a reasonable explanation. The court remanded for a new summary judgment hearing.
The trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow plaintiffs' counsel to present argument at the summary judgment hearing. Because counsel was only a few minutes late with a patently reasonable explanation and there was no showing of prejudice or willful misconduct, due process required that counsel be given the opportunity to contest the defendant's motion.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a party the opportunity to argue a motion for summary judgment when counsel is only a few minutes late, offers a reasonable…
[2] Due process requires that the non-moving party have a full and fair opportunity to contest the proposition that there is no genuine issue of material fact before summary…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“it is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to deprive a party of an opportunity to be heard at a hearing where counsel is a few minutes late, there is a patently reasonable explanation for the tardy appearance, and there is no showing of prejudice or willful misconduct”
Establishes the standard for when a trial court abuses its discretion by excluding counsel from oral argument
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs' counsel arrived at the scheduled summary judgment hearing but left briefly to use the restroom when he observed defense counsel was absent…
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 Slip And Fall cases and more on FLexlaw
CORRECTED OPINION
In this slip-and-fall case, the plaintiffs, Dorothy Natiello and William Natiello, appeal a final summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. We reverse solely for a new hearing on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
The facts set out in the plaintiffs’ verified motion for rehearing are undisputed. The plaintiffs’ counsel arrived for the summary judgment hearing at the scheduled time but left to go to the restroom when he saw that defense counsel was not present. When plaintiffs’ counsel returned to the courtroom a few minutes later, the trial court and defense counsel were wrapping up the summary judgment hearing. Despite defense counsel’s willingness to reargue the matter, the trial court refused to allow plaintiffs’ counsel to argue, stating: “No motion to continue, no memorandum in opposition, counsel you may not argue.” The trial court denied the plaintiffs’ verified motion for rehearing and entered final judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiffs appealed.
The standard of review applicable to a trial court’s entry of summary judgment is de novo. Everett Painting Co., Inc. v. Padula & Wadsworth Const., Inc., 856 So.2d 1059, 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Likewise, the issue of whether a party has been denied procedural due process is reviewed de novo. Residential Mortg. Servicing Corp. v. Winterlakes Prop. Owners Ass’n, 169 So.3d 253, 255 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).
Here, because plaintiffs’ counsel was only a few minutes late for the summary judgment hearing and offered a patently reasonable explanation for his tardy appearance, and there was no showing of prejudice or willful misconduct, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow plaintiffs’ counsel to present argument at the hearing. See Love v. Gruner, 658 So.2d 1180, 1181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (it is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to deprive a party of an opportunity to be heard at a hearing where counsel is a few minutes late, there is a patently reasonable explanation for the tardy appearance, and there is no showing of prejudice or willful misconduct); Phillips 66 Co. v. Int’l Tele-Coin Co., 564 So.2d 1219, 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (due process requires that before summary judgment is entered, the non-moving party must have a full and fair opportunity to contest the proposition that there is no genuine issue of material fact); see also Carmona v. Wal-Mart Stores, E., LP, 81 So.3d 461, 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (a summary judgment proceeding must be “essentially fair”).
Although plaintiffs’ counsel failed to file anything in opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, counsel should have been permitted to present argument on the issue of whether the defendant met its initial burden on summary judgment. We therefore reverse and remand for a new summary judgment hearing.
We express no views on the merits of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Reversed and Remanded for new summary judgment hearing.
GROSS, TAYLOR and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (30 total)
-
FL. Research Inst. of Equine Nurturing DEV & Safety v. Dillon, 247 So. 3d 538 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
-
Jenkins v. M.F. (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)…ith prejudice, this Court reviews them de novo. See Poole v. City of Port Orange, 33 So. 3d 739, 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Additionally, whether a party has been denied procedural process is also reviewed de novo. Natiello v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 203 So. 3d 209, 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Although there are no cases discussing the procedural due process that should be afforded in relation to dismissal of a truancy petition, it is clear that Florida courts require at least notice and an opportunity to be hear…
-
Jenkins v. C.D. (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)…ith prejudice, this Court reviews them de novo. See Poole v. City of Port Orange, 33 So. 3d 739, 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Additionally, whether a party has been denied procedural process is also reviewed de novo. Natiello v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 203 So. 3d 209, 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Although there are no cases discussing the procedural due process that should be afforded in relation to dismissal of a truancy petition, it is clear that Florida courts require at least notice and an opportunity to be hear…
Previewing 3 of 30 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Osanna S. Carmona and Nelson L. Carmona v. Wal-Mart Stores, 81 So. 3d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Everett Painting Co., Inc. v. Padula & Wadsworth Constr., Inc., 856 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Chrystal Adams Nixon v. State, 658 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Residential Mortg. Servicing Corp. v. Winterlakes Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc., 169 So. 3d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Phillips 66 Co. v. Int'l Tele-Coin Co., Inc., 564 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)