Florida Supreme Court Civil Procedure Rule Changes

If you practice civil litigation in Florida and you haven’t updated your templates since “pre-pandemic times,”
this is your gentle nudge. The Florida Supreme Court has been busy over the last few years, rolling out
major Florida Rules of Civil Procedure changes aimed at speeding up cases, tightening deadlines,
and nudging lawyers to talk to each other before firing off motions.

From a revamped summary judgment rule to a brand-new conferral requirement and a full-blown
framework for active case management, these changes aren’t just cosmetic edits. They affect how you schedule
discovery, structure your motion practice, and strategize settlement. Ignore them and you risk more than a
judicial scoldingyou risk blown deadlines, unenforceable settlement offers, and missed opportunities.

In this guide, we’ll walk through the key Florida Supreme Court civil procedure rule changes,
explain what they mean in real life, and share practical experiences from the trenches so you can adapt
without losing your sanity (or your coffee).

Why the Florida Supreme Court Is Rewriting the Rules

The Court’s recent amendments are driven by a few clear goals:

• Active case management: Judges are expected to actively manage civil cases instead of waiting for parties to move them along.
• Speed and predictability: Cases should move on a defined track with realistic, front-loaded deadlines.
• Alignment with federal practice: Florida’s summary judgment standard and scheduling expectations are increasingly modeled on federal rules and practice.
• Fewer avoidable motions: New conferral requirements and clearer rules are designed to cut down on unnecessary motion practice.

In short: the Court wants civil cases to move faster, with fewer surprises and less gamesmanship.

Big Themes Behind the Recent Rule Changes

Recent amendments across multiple rules share some common DNA:

1. Front-loading the work. Early case management orders, track assignments, and discovery planning push parties to think about the entire life of the case from the start.
2. Clearer, firmer deadlines. The updated rules build in concrete timeframes for things like responding to summary judgment and serving proposals for settlement.
3. More communication. The new conferral rule requires lawyers to talk before filing many non-dispositive motions, reducing “shotgun” motion practice.
4. Less procedural “gotcha.” Clarified requirements for proposals for settlement and summary judgment practice aim to reduce traps that turn litigation into a timing contest.

Key Florida Supreme Court Civil Procedure Rule Changes

1. Summary Judgment – Rule 1.510

Florida’s Rule 1.510 has undergone some of the most visible changes. First, the Court adopted a
summary judgment standard modeled on the federal rule, emphasizing whether there is a “genuine dispute as to any
material fact” and whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This was a major shift away from
the historically more restrictive Florida standard.

More recently, the Court fine-tuned the timing mechanics. Amendments tie the deadline to respond to a motion for
summary judgment to the service date of the motion, not the hearing date, and clarify that:

• Motions for summary judgment must be filed and served consistent with any court-ordered deadlines.
• Responses must be served within a specified number of days (for example, 40 days after service under the latest amendments), giving parties a predictable response window.
• The rule applies prospectively to motions filed after its effective date (January 1, 2025, for the newest round of changes).

Practically speaking, you can’t simply look at the hearing date anymore and work backward in your head. You must
track the service date of the motion, any case management order deadlines, and the response period
specified in the rule.

For lawyers, this means:

• Building a summary judgment “calendar template” that calculates response dates from the service date.
• Coordinating motion timing with the court’s case management order, not just your own internal case strategy.
• Expecting courts to enforce these deadlines more strictly, especially in actively managed divisions.

2. New Conferral Requirement – Rule 1.202 (Conferral Prior to Filing Motions)

The Court has also adopted Rule 1.202, Conferral Prior to Filing Motions. This rule requires parties
to confer before filing most non-dispositive motions. While there are exceptions for true emergencies, defaults, and
certain other situations, the default expectation is simple:

• You talk to opposing counsel.
• You make a genuine effort to resolve or narrow the issue.
• You certify your conferral efforts in the motion.

The practical effects:

• Less “surprise” motion practice. Opposing counsel should rarely be blindsided by a routine discovery or scheduling motion.
• More efficient hearings. Issues that survive the conferral process are narrower and more focused, which judges appreciate.
• Better paper trail. Your conferral emails and certifications can also help show you acted reasonably if things get contentious.

From a workflow standpoint, firms are updating their motion templates to include a conferral certification and
training staff to document conferral attempts carefully.

3. Active Case Management – Rules 1.200, 1.201, 1.280, 1.440, and 1.460

One of the biggest systemic changes comes from the Court’s effort to codify active case management
in civil cases. Through amendments in a rule package sometimes referred to by its case number (SC2023-0962), the
Court reshaped several rules, especially Rule 1.200 (Case Management; Pretrial Procedure).

Key features of this framework include:

• Track assignments. Civil cases must be assigned to one of three case management trackscomplex, general, or streamlinedusually within 120 days of filing.
• Case management orders. Courts enter case management orders setting deadlines for pleadings, discovery, motions, mediation, and trial.
• Periodic case management conferences. Judges may hold ongoing conferences to adjust deadlines, address discovery issues, and keep cases on track.
• Limited continuances. Amendments to rules like 1.460 reinforce that trial continuances are disfavored and must be justified under more consistent standards.

This systemsometimes referred to as “Differentiated Active Civil Case Management”is designed to match case
complexity to the level of judicial oversight. Simple cases shouldn’t languish on the same timeline as complex
multi-party litigation.

4. Proposals for Settlement – Rule 1.442

Rule 1.442 (Proposals for Settlement) has also been a frequent flyer on the amendment list. The
Court has tried to reduce confusion and gamesmanship around Florida’s offer of judgment statute.

Notable developments include:

• Limits on nonmonetary terms. Amendments effective July 1, 2022, clarified that proposals generally may not include nonmonetary terms unless authorized by statute, reducing the risk that a proposal is invalidated for overreaching conditions.
• Clarified timing. The rule continues to enforce strict timing requirements (for example, no proposal earlier than 90 days after service and no later than a set period before trial), and courts remain unforgiving when those deadlines are miscalculated.
• Ongoing refinements. As recently as 2025, the Court has considered additional amendments to Rule 1.442 and related forms (such as summons and forcible entry forms), signaling that practice under this rule will continue to evolve.

The takeaway? If your strategy involves proposals for settlement, you must constantly verify that
your language and timing comply with the most current version of Rule 1.442 and applicable case law.

5. Local Administrative Orders Implementing the Changes

While the Florida Supreme Court sets the statewide rules, individual circuits are implementing them through
administrative orders. These orders often:

• Specify how cases are assigned to tracks (complex, general, streamlined).
• Provide uniform case management order templates.
• Set default deadlines for service, discovery, and motion practice within each track.
• Outline procedures for requesting changes to case management deadlines and trial dates.

Many circuits reference the Supreme Court’s case management amendments directly and then layer on local guidance
to account for caseload and resources. For practitioners, this means the rules are only part onelocal
administrative orders are part two.

Smart firms now:

• Maintain a library of circuit-specific administrative orders.
• Use different internal checklists depending on venue.
• Update their case opening procedures to flag which case management track and deadlines apply from day one.

What These Rule Changes Mean in Practice

For Plaintiffs’ Counsel

Plaintiffs’ lawyers now operate in an environment where:

• Early case theory matters more. With case management orders arriving sooner, you can’t “wait and see” before deciding on discovery scope or expert needs.
• Summary judgment is a real threat (and opportunity). Under the federal-style standard, well-supported defense motions can be more potentbut plaintiffs can also use aggressive summary judgment practice on discrete issues to narrow the case.
• Settlement leverage is time-sensitive. Proposals for settlement must be timed carefully around the case management order and scheduled trial date to maximize fee-shifting potential.

For Defense Counsel

Defense lawyers feel the impact in several ways:

• Tighter internal coordination. Corporate clients and insurers must be brought into the case strategy earlier to sign off on discovery budgets, experts, and settlement ranges.
• Structured motion practice. With conferral requirements and firm SJ deadlines, boilerplate or last-minute motions are more likely to backfire.
• Case valuation sooner. Earlier, more active case management forces a realistic assessment of exposure much earlier in the life cycle of the case.

For In-House Counsel and Claims Professionals

In-house teams and insurance professionals also need to adapt:

• Budgeting. Front-loaded discovery and earlier expert involvement may increase early-case spend but can reduce long-term costs if it prompts earlier resolutions.
• Monitoring. Missed case management or summary judgment deadlines can have serious consequences, so in-house counsel increasingly demand clearer status reporting tied to rule-based milestones.
• Data and templates. Many organizations are standardizing internal guidelines around track assignments, expected durations, and settlement strategies under the updated rules.

Practical Checklist: Staying Ahead of Florida Civil Rule Changes

To keep your practice aligned with the latest Florida Supreme Court civil procedure rule changes,
consider the following checklist:

• Update your forms. Revise summary judgment, case management, and proposal for settlement templates to reflect current rule language and timing.
• Train your team. Ensure associates, paralegals, and calendaring staff understand the shift to service-based response deadlines and conferral requirements.
• Refresh your calendaring rules. Program case management orders, track deadlines, and summary judgment timelines into your docketing system.
• Monitor Supreme Court opinions. New amendments and clarifications continue to arrive; assign someone to monitor rule-related opinions and Florida Bar updates.
• Coordinate with local counsel. For out-of-area litigants, local counsel can be invaluable in navigating circuit-specific administrative orders and unwritten expectations.

Common Pitfalls Under the New Rules (and How to Avoid Them)

• Ignoring the case management order.
  Treating the case management order as “aspirational” rather than mandatory is risky. Courts now have both the rules and the institutional backing to enforce those deadlines strictly.
• Calculating deadlines from the hearing date instead of service.
  Under the revised summary judgment rule, response deadlines tied to service, not to the hearing. Always calendar from the correct anchor date.
• Skipping conferral.
  Filing a non-dispositive motion without proper conferral risks denial on procedural grounds, even if your underlying argument is strong.
• Using outdated proposal for settlement language.
  Old templates may include nonmonetary terms or joint structures that no longer pass muster under Rule 1.442 and recent case law.
• Overlooking local administrative orders.
  Statewide rules are only part of the story. Circuit-specific administrative orders may add track timelines, forms, and procedures that can’t be ignored.

Experiences from the Trenches: Adapting to the Florida Rule Changes (Approx. )

To understand how these changes play out in real life, it helps to look at how different types of practices are
adjusting to the new Florida civil procedure landscape.

One midsized plaintiff firm in Miami quickly learned the hard way that the new summary judgment deadlines were
not theoretical. Defense counsel served a well-supported summary judgment motion early in the case. The firm, used
to working backward from the hearing date, assumed it had more than enough time to respond. By the time someone
double-checked the rule and the case management order, the response deadline was uncomfortably close.

The fix? The firm implemented a “three-clock” system for every summary judgment motion:

• A clock tied to the date of service of the motion.
• A clock tied to any case management order deadlines.
• A clock tied to the hearing date, used only as a scheduling reference, not as a deadline anchor.

Now, every time a dispositive motion comes in, the calendaring team automatically builds out internal drafting,
review, and client-consultation deadlines keyed to the service date. The firm reports that this one change has
dramatically reduced “fire-drill weekends.”

On the defense side, an insurance defense team in Tampa turned the new conferral rule into a strategic advantage.
Instead of treating conferral as a mere box to check, they began using conferral calls to:

• Narrow discovery disputes before drafting motions.
• Explore potential phased discovery or issue-based summary judgment.
• Float early settlement concepts under the umbrella of case management conferences.

Their experience has been that judges appreciate coming into hearings where counsel can say, “We’ve already agreed
on A, B, and Ctoday we only need your guidance on D.” It shortens hearings and builds credibility with the court,
which can pay dividends later when more controversial issues arise.

In-house counsel for a regional business facing frequent premises liability claims has also shifted strategy.
The company used to wait until close to trial before seriously evaluating settlement. Under the new active case
management and summary judgment regime, they now insist on:

• A preliminary case valuation within 90–120 days of service.
• A recommended window for any proposals for settlement that dovetails with the track assignment and case management order.
• Regular status updates keyed to rule-based deadlines, not just arbitrary calendar dates.

The result has been more consistent use of proposals for settlement and earlier resolutions in cases where
liability is relatively clear but damages are disputed. Even when cases don’t settle, the company feels better
positioned to explain to leadership why a particular matter went to trial: the decision is tied to a structured
process, not to “we ran out of time.”

Finally, many solo and small-firm practitioners are leaning heavily on technologydocketing software, rule-based
deadline calculators, and shared templatesto keep up. While the volume of changes can feel overwhelming, lawyers
who invest a bit of time in systems and checklists often discover that their practices become more organized,
more predictable, and frankly less stressful once the new rules are built into their everyday workflows.

Conclusion

The latest Florida Supreme Court civil procedure rule changes are not simply technical edits for
rule junkies. They reshape how civil cases are managed, how quickly they move, and how lawyers must plan discovery,
motion practice, and settlement. With an updated summary judgment rule, a new conferral requirement, active case
management tracks, and ongoing tweaks to proposals for settlement, the message is clear: be proactive, be
communicative, and be organized.

Whether you are a seasoned litigator or just entering Florida practice, now is the time to refresh forms, retrain
your team, and rethink your case timelines around these rules. Doing so won’t just keep you compliantit can also
make your practice more efficient and your results more predictable in an increasingly structured civil justice
system.