Florida’s summary judgment landscape continues to shift toward efficiency and federal-style coherence. Effective January 1, 2025, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c)(5) mandates that a nonmovant must serve a response to a summary judgment motion no later than forty (40) days after service of the motion. This replaces the previously prevailing rule that tied the deadline to twenty days before a hearing and streamlines timing in alignment with Florida’s case management objectives. The Florida Supreme Court confirmed this revision in In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, No. SC2024‑0662 (Fla. Dec. 5, 2024), clarifying that hearings may not be held earlier than ten (10) days after the response deadline unless shortened by order or stipulation.
This procedural tightening is the latest development in Florida’s gradual embrace of the federal summary judgment standard—adopted in 2021 through In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, 317 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 2021). The rule now requires courts to apply the standards articulated in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986), and Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986), binding in federal practice and persuasive in Florida. However, this timing rule does not appear in the federal counterpart.
Appellate courts have already signaled strict enforcement of these standards under the confirmed timeline. In Fuentes v. Link, 394 So. 3d 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024), the Third District held that a trust instrument providing for transfer of property functioned as a valid conveyance—even without a deed or recording—emphasizing adherence to statutory formalities in summary judgment contexts.
In Bechor v. Simcenter, Inc., 394 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024), the Third District reversed, holding that summary judgment should not have been granted where students of a flight school that closed before they could complete their training who filed suit against defendant under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, § 501.204(1), Fla. Stat., because defendant failed to show that the students lacked sufficient evidence to support their claim.
Likewise, in Lassiter v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp., 386 So. 3d 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024), the court held that granting of summary judgment entered in favor of the insurer was improper because the trial court impermissibly weighed the evidence in ruling on the insurer’s motion when it determined that the parties’ affidavits resulted in a “tie” and that there were no genuine disputes as to a material fact precluding summary judgment; the competing affidavits created a genuine dispute as to a material fact, that was, the cause of the damage to the insured’s roof.
Older precedents under the prior rule continue to instruct regarding remedial discretion and evidentiary obligations. In Lloyd S. Meisels, P.A. v. Dobrofsky, 341 So. 3d 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022), the court upheld summary judgment where the nonmovant failed to serve any supporting factual opposition, allowing the court to treat the movant’s facts as undisputed.
Rule 1.510(c)(5) states unambiguously that the nonmovant “must serve a response” within forty days of service of the motion for summary judgment. This language is mandatory—not permissive—making strict compliance essential. A failure to respond within the forty-day window can result in the court deeming the movant’s facts undisputed under Rule 1.510(e), or in entry of summary judgment without further hearing. Accordingly, if the nonmovant needs more time, a timely and supported motion for extension must be filed before the deadline expires, either under Rule 1.090(b) (for good cause) or under Rule 1.510(e), which provides a targeted procedure for parties who cannot yet present facts essential to justify their opposition. The latter requires a declaration or affidavit explaining why the party is unable to present such facts despite reasonable efforts. Upon a proper showing, the court may defer ruling, allow time to obtain necessary discovery, or issue other relief. These safeguards, derived from Federal Rule 56(d), are available only if invoked before the forty-day deadline expires. Failure to do so not only risks waiver, but also may result in dispositive consequences. Informal stipulations or assumptions of leniency are no substitute for a court order, and practitioners must not rely on unwritten understandings. In short, when factual development is incomplete or delay is unavoidable, seeking relief early and in compliance with the rule is the only path to preserve the right to oppose summary judgment.
Florida practitioners must adapt swiftly. The forty-day response clock begins the day the motion is served, regardless of when a hearing is scheduled. Any summary judgment hearing must be set no earlier than ten days after the response deadline—strict scheduling, now codified, no longer optional. Responses must include admissible evidence, supported by record citations, satisfying subdivision (1) requirements. Unsupported or generalized statements, evidentiary deficiencies, or delayed responses risk summary judgment, deemed admissions, or sanctions.
Earlier appellate decisions such as Fuentes, Bechor, Lassiter, and foundational handling in Dobrofsky reflect Florida’s evolving posture: summary judgment is procedural precision executed as a dispositive strategy—not an afterthought. The message is clear: Federal timing and substance now define Florida practice, and compliance is essential.
About the Author
Mark R. Osherow is a Florida Bar Board Certified Specialist in Business Litigation with over three decades of litigation experience in state and federal courts. He is the creator of Trial Strategist: Florida Civil + Federal and regularly authors and teaches on civil procedure, trial strategy, and litigation effectiveness.
This article reflects verified legal authority as of August 2025. Counsel should consult the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and confirm case law directly before relying on it in practice.
