ROBINSON JULIEN
v.
MARK ALHADEFF, 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.
Summary judgment should not be granted on a defendant's motion before the plaintiff has answered the complaint unless it is clear that no genuine issue of material fact can be presented.
[1] A plaintiff moving for summary judgment before the defendant has filed an answer bears the burden to establish to a certainty that no answer the defendant might properly…
[2] Summary judgment is improper when a plaintiff moves for the judgment before the defendant has filed an answer and the plaintiff fails to establish to a certainty that no…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 a trial court has for consideration a plaintiff's motion for summary judgment before the defendant has answered, the summary judgment should not be granted unless it is clear that an issue of material fact cannot be presented.”
Court's statement of the legal standard applicable when summary judgment is sought before defendant's answer
Appellants Robinson Julien and King Alpha Properties & Investments, LLC were sued by Mark Alhadeff (as trustee of a family trust) for breach of a sett…
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 Breach Of Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed December 16, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D20-341 Lower Tribunal No. 19-6672
________________
Robinson Julien, et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
Mark Alhadeff, etc.,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose M. Rodriguez, Judge. Neustein Law Group, P A., and Nicole R. Moskowitz, for appellants. The Orlofsky Law Firm, P.L., and Alexander S. Orlofsky, for appellee. Before LOGUE, SCALES and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Robinson Julien and King Alpha Properties & Investments, LLC (collectively, “Appellants”), appeal the trial court’s order granting Mark Alhadeff’s1 motion for summary judgment.2 The trial court heard and ruled on Alhadeff’s motion before Appellants served an answer to the complaint or asserted any affirmative defenses and while Appellants’ motion to dismiss was pending before it.
Thus, Alhadeff had a “heightened burden of establishing conclusively and to a certainty that Appellants could not plead or otherwise raise a genuine issue of material fact.” Zur Invs., LLC v. Auslander, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1933 (Fla. 3d DCA
Aug. 12, 2020) (“When a trial court has for consideration a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment before the defendant has answered, the summary judgment should not be granted unless it is clear that an issue of material fact cannot be presented.” (citations omitted)). Alhadeff failed to meet this “extremely high” burden, and, as such, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. See id.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robinson Julien v. Alhadeff, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1933 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Robinson Julien v. Alhadeff, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1933 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)