On December 31, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, that goes into effect May 2021.

The amended rule adopts the federal summary judgment standard. Prior to the amendment, Florida courts and the federal courts had not been aligned in their controlling summary judgment standard.
​
Prior to this amendment, there were two relevant differences between the Florida and the Federal summary judgment standards:

1. Florida courts have required the moving party to conclusively disprove the non-movant’s theory of the case in order to eliminate any issue of fact. By contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that there is no express or implied requirement in the federal rule that the moving party must negate the opponent’s claim. Under the newly adopted federal summary judgment standard, the extent of the moving party’s burden varies depending on who bears the burden of persuasion at trial; and 
2. Florida had a more lenient standard for what constitutes a genuine issue of material fact. Prior to the amendment, the existence of any competent evidence created an issue of fact, however credible or incredible, substantial or trivial, it precluded summary judgment, so long as the “slightest doubt” was raised. (Citations omitted). By contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court has described the federal test as whether the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. (Citations omitted). A party opposing summary judgment must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to material fact. 

House Bill 621 has successfully passed the Ohio House of Representatives and is now before the Senate. Known as the Business Fairness Act, the Bill seeks to amend those sections of the Ohio Revised Code governing violations of prohibitions ordered by the Department of Health, Board of Health and various health districts (R.C. 3701.352, 3707.48 and 3709.211) by permitting businesses to continue operation in certain cases when ordered to cease.

​Specifically, the Bill proposes that a “business that has been required to cease or limit operations by order or regulation… due to epidemic, threatened epidemic, or the unusual prevalence of a dangerous communicable disease, may continue or resume operations if it complies with any safety precautions  that the order or regulation requires of businesses that are permitted to continue operations.”  Proposed R.C. 3707.481.

The Michigan Supreme Court has amended its June 2020 Administrative Order No. 2020-17 that provided direction to state courts for resuming eviction actions. Prior to the pandemic, courts traditionally processed these types of cases in a “cattle-call” fashion, with numerous cases being called simultaneously and resulting in large number of individuals in crowded and enclosed spaces. 

​The Court noted in June that this method of processing eviction cases was inconsistent with safety protocol in place due to COVID-19 and would present a public health threat if removal of moratoriums on eviction filings resulted in a sudden increase in eviction filings once the court resumed full-capacity operations. Most notably, Order 2020-17 did three things:

1. The Order required each eviction case individually be set for hearing at a unique date and time to be conducted remotely;
2. The Order classified and prioritized the hearing of eviction cases, with complaints alleging illegal activity given the greatest priority, followed by rental delinquencies of more than 120 days;
3. The Order permitted a default judgment to be granted against a served defendant for failure to appear at the hearing.

 
The amendment extends compliance with Order 2020-17 through the end of 2020 in tandem with the CDC’s eviction moratorium and seeks to reduce “the possibility of further infection while ensuring that landlord/tenant cases are able to be filed and adjudicated efficiently.” Amendment to Administrative Order No. 2020-17.

​The above information provided by PLG attorney, Ellen Fornash, licensed in OH, KY and MI.

With nearly all of Kentucky’s 120 counties in the “red zone” related to average daily coronavirus cases per population, the Kentucky Supreme Court has replaced and extended two prior mandates regarding in-person court appearances. Administrative Order 2020-71 replaces Administrative Order 2020-63, while Administrative Order 2020-72 replaces Administrative Order 2020-64.

​These Orders become effective November 30, 2020 and apply to all Kentucky counties. Most notably, entrance to judicial facilities will be reduced, hearings will be conducted remotely whenever possible, jury trials will be suspended until February 1, 2021 and judicial foreclosure sales will be conducted either remotely or outside and in accordance with CDC guidelines.

​The above information provided by PLG attorney, Ellen Fornash, licensed in OH, KY and MI.

​In a unique move, that mimics the rules of Federal Procedure, The Texas Supreme Court has made some of the biggest discovery changes to occur in Texas State trial courts in the past two decades. Attorneys and staff will need to take to learn and fully understand all the changes in order to properly implement new procedures as they apply to all cases filed on or after January 1, 2021. 
​
In accordance with the 86th legislature and Senate Bill 2342 the Texas Supreme Court has approved amendments to Rules 169 and 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Rule 169 governing expedited actions has been amended to apply to suits in which all claimants, other than counter-claimants, affirmatively plead that they seek only monetary relief aggregating $250,000 or less excluding interest, statutory, or punitive damages and penalties, and attorney’s fees and costs. This amendment has effectively raised the statutory limitation for expedited actions from $100,000 to $250,000. This will essentially promote the prompt, efficient, and cost-effective resolution of civil actions filed in courts of law in which the amount in controversy does not exceed $250,000. Further, certain actions will remain exempt from Rule 169’s application by statute. See e.g. Tex. Estates Code Sec. 53.107. 
​
The most important changes to be aware of however have been made to the rules of discovery. Per the new amendments, discovery and production will no longer be optional.

Effective as of January 1, 2021 Rule 194 has been amended as follows: 
194.1 Duty to Disclose; Production 

• Duty to Disclose. Except as exempted by Rule 194.2(d) or as otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by the court, a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties the information or material described in Rule 194.2, 194.3, and 194.4.
• Production. Copies of documents and other tangible items ordinarily must be served with the response. But if the responsive documents are voluminous, the response must state a reasonable time and place for the production of documents. The responding party must produce the documents at the time and place stated, unless otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by the court and must provide the requesting party a reasonable opportunity to inspect them.

194.2 Initial Disclosures 

• Time for Initial Disclosures. A party must make the initial disclosures at or within 30 days after the filing of the first answer unless a different time is set by the parties’ agreement or court order. A party that is first served or otherwise joined after the filing of the first answer must make the initial disclosures within 30 days after being served or joined, unless a different time is set by the parties’ agreement or court order.
• Content. Without awaiting a discovery request, a party must provide to the other parties:

1. The correct names of the parties to the lawsuit;
2. The name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties;
3. The legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the responding party’s claims or defenses (the responding party need not marshal all evidence that may be offered at trial);
4. A computation of each category of damages claimed by the responding party—who must also make available for inspection and copying the documents or other evidentiary material, unless privileged or protected from disclosure, on which each computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered;
5. The name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified person’s connection with the case;
6. A copy—or a description by category and location—of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the responding party has in its possession, custody, or control, and may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment;
7. Any indemnity and insuring agreements described in Rule 192.3(f);
8. Any settlement agreements described in Rule 192.3(g);
9. Any witness statements described in Rule 192.3(h);
10. In a suit alleging physical or mental injury and damages from the occurrence that is the subject of the case, all medical records and bills that are reasonably related to the injuries or damages asserted or, in lieu thereof, an authorization permitting the disclosure of such medical records and bills;
11. In a suit alleging physical or mental injury and damages from the occurrence that is the subject of the case, all medical records and bills obtained by the responding party by virtue of an authorization furnished by the requesting party; and
12. The name, address, and telephone number of any person who may be designated as a responsible third party.

 ​The Texas Supreme Court has commented that the amendment to Rule 194 will assist in balancing the need for lowering discovery costs against the complexity of and discovery needs in expedited actions. Further, Rule 194 is amended based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) to require disclosure of basic discovery automatically, without awaiting a discovery request. A party is not excused from making its disclosures because it has not fully investigated the case or because it challenges the sufficiency of another party’s disclosure or because another party has not made its disclosures. 

In a decision that will be deemed as a big win for creditors, litigators, or really anyone who has ever dealt with evasive defendants, the State of Texas has decided to enter into a new age and territory when it comes to dealing with service of process.
​
The Supreme Court of Texas in accordance with the 86th Legislature and Senate Bill 891 has approved amendments to Rule 106 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 106 has been revised in response to section 17.033 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which calls for rules to provide for substituted service of citation by social media.