← Case library
2nd DCANovember 27, 2024Affirmed⭐ Notable

Coury v. City of Tampa

Case No. 2D2023-2165

After the close of discovery, the City moved for summary judgment arguing simply that Coury lacked evidence to support his negligent hiring/training/supervision claims; Coury filed no evidence in response, contending the City never met its initial burden of production. The Second District affirmed, holding that under amended rule 1.510 and the Celotex standard, a movant who does not bear the trial burden need not produce any evidence and may discharge its 'far from stringent' initial burden by pointing out the absence of record evidence, at which point the burden shifts to the nonmovant.

Key facts

  • Coury sued the City of Tampa for negligent hiring, training, and supervision; after discovery closed, the City moved for summary judgment arguing Coury lacked evidentiary support for his claims without itself submitting evidence.
  • Coury did not file a response with evidence, instead arguing the City failed to meet its initial burden of production.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

This is one of the clearest post-amendment Florida appellate explanations of the 'absence of evidence' route to summary judgment under rule 1.510, expressly rejecting the common argument that a defendant-movant must… — full analysis with a trial

Best value · free

Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.

  • Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
  • Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
  • Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Start my free 30-day trial → No credit card required
👀 Take a quick tour of the site → 60 seconds · click a real case · no login

Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.