QUESADA VALDES PLLC
v.
1313 PONCE DE LEON BUILDING, INC.
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 trial court's judgment was affirmed based on the principle that summary judgment is appropriate when one party's factual account is blatantly contradicted by the record such that no reasonable jury could believe it.
[1] When one party's version of facts is blatantly contradicted by the record such that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court need not adopt that version of the facts…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.”
The court's statement of the applicable legal standard for summary judgment when parties present conflicting factual accounts.
Quesada Valdes PLLC appealed a decision from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County in a dispute with 1313 Ponce de Leon Building, Inc.…
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 Summary Judgment Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed November 13, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0202 Lower Tribunal No. 22-10250 ________________
Quesada Valdes PLLC, Appellant,
vs.
1313 Ponce de Leon Building, Inc., Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice Butchko Sanchez, Judge.
Sheehe & Associates, P.A., and Phillip J. Sheehe and Johanna E. Sheehe, for appellant.
Damian | Valori | Culmo, and Peter F. Valori and Joseph A. Seara, for appellee.
Before EMAS, LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. Chowdhury v. BankUnited, N.A., 366 So. 3d 1130, 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” (quotation omitted)).