GROMY FUENZALIDA

v.

HERC RENTALS INC.

Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed April 22, 2026.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D25-1245

Lower Tribunal No. 24-17717-CA-01

Gromy Fuenzalida,

Appellant,

VS.

Herc Rentals Inc.,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Charles Kenneth Johnson, Judge.

DASA Law, and Elee Dammous and Jesus Santiago, for appellant.

Hahn Loeser & Parks, LLP, and Heather A. DeGrave (Tampa), for appellee.

Before SCALES, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LINDSEY, JJ.

SCALES, C.J.

Appellant Gromy Fuenzalida, the defendant below, appeals a June 27, 2025 final summary judgment awarding appellee Herc Rentals Inc. (“Herc"), the plaintiff below, $86,957.55 in damages. We reverse the summary judgment because our de novo review of the summary judgment record¹ reveals that Herc failed to meet its initial summary judgment burden of establishing no genuine dispute of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(a).

Herc's "Complaint for Services Rendered and Other Damages” alleged merely that the parties "had business transactions between them” and the only exhibit attached to the complaint was an unexecuted sales order for a John Deere mini-excavator. Fuenzalida responded with a pro se motion seeking an extension of time to file a responsive pleading to allow him to hire counsel. But because Fuenzalida's pro se motion for extension of time included superfluous statements that Fuenzalida had rented the miniexcavator and that it had been stolen, the trial court erroneously treated the motion as Fuenzalida's responsive pleading.² Further, the technical

admissions resulting from Fuenzalida's failure to timely respond to Herc's requests for admissions, see Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.370(a), amounted to little more than Fuenzalida admitting that he and Herc had a business relationship.

The trial court's final summary judgment relied on the superfluous statements contained in Fuenzalida's pro se motion for extension of time, finding that Fuenzalida had rented the mini-excavator from Herc. But nothing in the summary judgment record, including the unexecuted sales order attached to Herc's complaint, established the terms of any rental agreement or that the parties had agreed that Fuenzalida bore the risk of loss if the miniexcavator was stolen during the rental period. Summary judgment evidence establishing these essential threshold facts was necessary for Herc to meet its initial summary burden of showing that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Baum v. Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., 351 So. 3d 185, 189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (“Florida law is clear: 'The moving party bears the initial burden of showing that, based on the summary judgment evidence, no material issues of fact exist and it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.' Until the moving party has met that burden, the non-moving party is not obliged to prove or disprove anything.” (citations omitted) (quoting Boyle v. Hernando Beach S. Prop. Owners Ass'n, 124 So. 3d 317, 319 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013))).

We therefore reverse the final summary judgment, and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.