DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DAVID B. MECH, Appellant, v. BRAZILIAN WAXING BY SISTERS, INC., Appellee. No. 4D22-145 [August 10, 2022] Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Edward A. Garrison, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502020SC003890. Jason S. Weiss of Weiss Law Group, P.A., Coral Springs, for appellant. No appearance for appellee. FORST, J. Appellant David B. Mech appeals the trial court’s final judgment summarily denying his motion for summary judgment and granting Appellee Brazilian Waxing by Sisters, Inc.’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Appellant’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court failed to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(a) in issuing its summary judgment rulings without stating the reason for said rulings on the record. As Appellant’s claim was filed in small claims court and rule 1.510 is not necessarily applicable to small claims actions, we find no error and thus affirm. Background Appellant filed a complaint against Appellee, seeking $95 in damages for Appellee’s alleged breach of the Palm Beach County Code and further requesting to enjoin Appellee from engaging in discriminatory pricing. The filing sheet designated the complaint as a “County Civil Small Claim[] up to $8,000,” seeking both monetary and “[n]on-monetary declaratory or injunctive relief.” Appellant moved for summary judgment “pursuant to Rule 1.510 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.” Less than two weeks later, Appellee filed a competing motion for summary judgment. This motion made no reference to the Florida Rules. A hearing was held on the motions and both parties agreed with the trial court’s observation “there are no material disputed issues of fact. This is purely an issue of law, and it’s all or nothing[,] one of you is right and one of you is wrong.” After a short hearing, the trial court reserved its ruling. Later that day, the trial court issued a final judgment wherein it summarily denied Appellant’s motion for summary judgment and summarily granted Appellee’s cross-motion for summary judgment. After the trial court denied Appellant’s motion for rehearing, Appellant filed the instant appeal. Analysis An appellate court reviews the trial court’s summary disposition of a small claims action de novo. See Larsens Auto., LLC v. Haberkorn, 326 So. 3d 785, 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (“Because [Florida Small Claims Rule 7.135] appears analogous to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 governing summary judgment, we will review the trial court’s grant of summary disposition de novo.”). Here, Appellant summarizes his argument as “the Order is legally insufficient because it does not identify the reasons for granting or denying either of the Parties’ motions for summary judgment [and w]ithout such reasoning, Appellant is unduly imperiled if the Order is found to be legally sufficient.” In light of this narrow issue, we refrain from addressing the merits of the trial court’s rulings on the respective motions for summary judgment. The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure “apply to all actions of a civil nature . . . …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals