JORGE ALVAREZ, JR., ET AL.
v.
GONZALO GAMBA, 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.
Summary judgment was properly granted for buyers where sellers failed to file a response or evidence in opposition to the motion, allowing the trial court to treat the buyers' factual assertions as undisputed.
[1] Under the amended summary judgment standard, a nonmoving party who fails to file a response with supporting factual assertions forfeits the ability to contest the moving…
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“If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact as required by rule 1.510(c), the court may . . . consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion.”
Citation to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(e)(2) explaining the consequence of failing to respond to summary judgment motion.
Sellers Jorge and Diana Alvarez sued buyers Gonzalo and Cira Gamba for breach of contract and unjust enrichment following a failed residential condomi…
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 De Novo Review Of Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed June 18, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0633 Lower Tribunal No. 22-25904-CC-25 ________________
Jorge Alvarez, Jr., et al., Appellants,
vs.
Gonzalo Gamba, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Patricia Marino Pedraza, Judge.
Gonzalez Law Offices, P.A., and Anthony Gonzalez and Dennis S. Klein, for appellants.
Albert D. Rey, P.A., and Albert D. Rey, for appellees.
Before EMAS, SCALES and GOODEN, JJ.
EMAS, J.
Following a failed transaction for the sale and purchase of a residential condominium unit in Miami, Jorge and Diana Alvarez (Sellers) filed suit against Gonzalo and Cira Gamba (Buyers) for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Buyers eventually filed a motion for summary judgment, and Sellers filed no response nor any evidence in opposition to Buyers’ summary judgment motion. Following a hearing, the trial court granted Buyers’ motion and thereafter entered final summary judgment in favor of Buyers. Sellers sought rehearing, which the trial court denied, and this appeal followed.1
Upon our de novo review, Priority Med. Ctrs., LLC v. Allstate Ins. Co., 319 So. 3d 724, 726 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (citing Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000)), we hold that the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Buyers, and affirm the trial court’s entry of final summary judgment. See § 718.503(2)(d)2., Fla. Stat.
3 (2022) (requiring contracts for sale of a residential unit to include certain terms and provisions, including the provision contained in the instant contract); Bydalek v. Saenz, 368 So. 3d 508, 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (interpreting the final sentence contained in section 718.503(2)(d)2. and in the contract—“BUYER'S RIGHT TO VOID THIS AGREEMENT SHALL TERMINATE AT CLOSING”—to mean a buyer’s right to void the agreement does not terminate until closing actually occurs, regardless of the closing date set forth in the contract); see also Aria on the Bay Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Bayshore Plaza I, LLC, 394 So. 3d 95, 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“Under the new [summary judgment] standard, once the moving party satisfies [the] initial burden [of proof], the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Specifically, it is incumbent upon the nonmoving party to come forward with evidentiary material demonstrating that a genuine issue of fact exists as to an element necessary for the non-movant to prevail at trial.”) (quotation omitted); Lloyd S. Meisels, P.A. v. Dobrofsky, 341 So. 3d 1131, 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (“Because the defendants failed to file a response with their supporting factual position, as required under the amended rule, the trial court was permitted to consider the facts set forth in the plaintiff's motion for
4 summary judgment as ‘undisputed for purposes of the motion.’”) (quoting Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(e)(2) (“If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact as required by rule 1.510(c), the court may . . . consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion.”)). Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen AT Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000)
- Lloyd Meisels, P.A. v. Dobrofsky, 341 So. 3d 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)
- Diaz v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 227 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Progressive Select Ins. Co. v. IN House Diagnostic Servs., Inc., 323 So. 3d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
- Reynaldo Acosta and Iliana B. Acosta v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 245 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Bydalek v. Saenz, 368 So. 3d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)