MARTHA SUAREZ IZQUIERDO
v.
PRESIDENTE SUPERMARKET NO. 27, INC., ETC.
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.
Where the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof on a dispositive issue at trial, the moving party need only demonstrate an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case to warrant summary judgment.
[1] The primary test for determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship is whether the alleged employer exercises control over the employee with respect to th…
[2] The respondeat superior doctrine applies only when the alleged master has the ability and authority to direct and control the pertinent acts of the employee.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Where . . . the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof on a dispositive issue at trial, the moving party need only demonstrate 'that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.'”
Citing Rich v. Narog, the court restated the summary judgment standard applicable to this case.
Martha Suarez Izquierdo appealed a summary judgment decision in her case against Presidente Supermarket No. 27, Inc. The case involved a determination…
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 Burden Of Proof In Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Rich v. Narog, 366 So. 3d 1111, 1118 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Where . . . the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof on a dispositive issue at trial, the moving party need only demonstrate ‘that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.’” (footnote omitted) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986))); Moles v. Gotti, 433 So. 2d 1380, 1381 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (“The primary test for determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship is whether the person being served exercises control over the person performing the service with respect to the manner in which the work is performed rather than merely the result to be obtained.”); Vasquez v. United Enters. of Sw. Fla., Inc., 811 So. 2d 759, 760 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“It is a fundamental rule that the respondeat superior doctrine applies only when the alleged master has the ability and authority to direct and control the pertinent acts of the employee.”); Postal Tel. & Cable Co. v. Doyle, 167 So. 358, 360 (Fla. 1936) (“It is competent for a principal to loan or farm out his servant to a third party, and if such third party has complete dominion over the servant, and directs his conduct at all times, he will be held responsible for his derelictions even though the principal is paying his salary; but this rule does not hold good if the principal in any way withholds control over him.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986)
- Postal Tel. & Cable Co. v. Bart Doyle, 123 Fla. 695 (Fla. 1936)
- Rich v. Narog, 366 So. 3d 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
- Moles v. Edward W. Gotti, M.D., 433 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Vasquez v. United Enters. OF Sw. Fla., Inc., 811 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)