LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MR. AND MRS. MATTHEW T. MELLON, APPELLEES
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.
Lufthansa German Airlines appealed a partial summary judgment on liability in favor of passengers who sued for the loss of luggage during a trans-Atlantic flight. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, rejecting the airline's arguments that were largely based on a late-filed affidavit the trial court properly excluded.
The trial court properly granted partial summary judgment on liability because the plaintiffs' evidence was entirely unrebutted and Lufthansa failed to point out any genuine issues of material fact. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to consider the late-filed affidavit as it violated Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.510(c).
[1] A trial court has discretion to refuse to consider an affidavit filed untimely in violation of procedural rules.
[2] A party's attempt to create issues of fact within the opposing party's evidence, without presenting new evidence, may amount to an attempt to conjure insubstantial paper…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the trial court was well within its discretion in declining to consider this affidavit on the ground that it was untimely filed in violation of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c)”
Establishes that the trial court properly excluded the late-filed affidavit and that Lufthansa's arguments based on it lacked merit.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMr. and Mrs. Matthew T. Mellon sued Lufthansa German Airlines for the loss of luggage during a trans-Atlantic flight from Frankfurt, Germany to Miami,…
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 Genuine Issue Of Material Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a partial summary judgment determining the issue of liability in favor of the plaintiffs in an action filed below. We have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Art. Y, Sec. 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv).
The plaintiffs Mr. and Mrs. Matthew T. Mellon brought suit in the trial court against the defendant Lufthansa German Airlines Corporation and another party. They sought recovery for the value of a piece of luggage which was allegedly lost while in the charge of the defendant airline during a trans-Atlantic air flight from Frankfurt, Germany to Miami, Florida. Certain discovery was taken in the action, and, based thereon, the plaintiffs made a motion for summary judgment on liability attaching thereto certain affidavits.
The trial court heard and granted the motion-for partial summary judgment. The defendant airline filed a motion for rehearing and also sought the trial court’s leave to file a late affidavit which contained a facsimile airline ticket, different from that produced by the defendant during discovery, which ticket was allegedly the same as that used by the plaintiffs during their trans-Atlantic flight.
The trial court' declined to consider the late-filed affidavit and denied the motion for rehearing. This appeal follows.
The defendant airline has presented a number of points on appeal, many of which are based on the late-filed affidavit which the trial court refused to consider below. These points have no merit as the trial court was well within its discretion in declining to consider this affidavit on the ground that it was untimely filed in violation of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c).
Coffman Realty, Inc. v. Tosohatchee Game Preserve, Inc., 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1982), adopting, 381 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Stolzenburg v. Forte Towers South, Inc., 430 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
Beyond that, the balance of the defendant’s points on appeal fail to point out any genuine issues of material fact which would preclude a summary judgment on liability for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs’ evidence in this case is entirely unrebutted, and the defense effort to create issues of fact within the plaintiffs’ own evidence amounts to nothing more than an attempt to conjure up insubstantial paper issues. Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So. 2d 482 (Fla.1956).
The partial summary judgment under review is therefore
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gregoria Valcin and Gerard Valcin v. Pub. Health Tr. OF Dade Cnty., 473 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…w clear that it is well within a trial court’s discretion to accept an affidavit filed after a summary judgment hearing, see Coffman Realty, Inc. v. Tosohatchee Game Preserve, Inc., 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1982); Lufthansa German Airlines Corp. v. Mellon, 444 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Maddox v. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center, 438 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Stolzenberg v. Forte Towers South, Inc., 430 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), the trial court’s rejection of the affidavit is immaterial,…
-
Boettcher v. IMC Mortg. Co., 871 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…withstand summary judgment. As IMC correctly observes, Professor Halpert did not offer an opinion concerning what the preferable method of valuation would be or what value that method would produce. Citing Lufthansa German Airlines Corp. v. Mellon, 444 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), IMC argues that the dissenters “cannot create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment by attempting to create facts within IMC’s unrebut-ted evidence.” However, before deciding the summary judgmen…
-
Walter T. Embry, Inc. v. LaSALLE Nat'l Bank, 792 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…to reveal a genuine issue. Unsubstantiated “paper issues”raised in defense of a claim which has been established by undisputed evidence are insufficient to prevent the entry of summary judgment. See, e.g., Lufthansa German Airlines Corp. v. Mellon, 444 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Johnson v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 429 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Bared v. Miami Prof'l Sports, Ltd., 353 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Reflex, N.V. v. UMET Trust, 336 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The mortgage foreclosure He…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Coffman Realty, Inc. v. Tosohatchee Game Preserve, Inc., 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)
- Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., 89 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1956)
- McArthur Breedlove v. State, 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)
- Coffman Realty, Inc. v. Tosohatchee Game Preserve, Inc., 381 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Stolzenberg v. Forte Towers S., Inc., 430 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)