text:
    In re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES—REPORT NO. 2011-01 (UNLAWFUL RETALIATION).
    No. SC11-1403.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    July 12, 2012.
    Honorable James M. Barton, II, Acting Chair, Standard Jury Instructions — Civil Cases; Joseph H. Lang, Jr. of Carlton Fields, P.A., Tampa, FL; Honorable Edward C. Larose, Second District Court of Appeal, Lakeland, FL, for Petitioner.
   PER CURIAM.

The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases (Committee) has submitted proposed changes to the standard jury instructions in civil cases and asks that the Court authorize the proposed new standard instructions. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

In In re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases—Report No. 09-01 (Reorganization of the Civil Jury Instructions), 35 So.3d 666 (Fla.2010), the Court authorized the reorganization and updated wording of the standard civil jury instructions. The Court observed that the reorganization was “based upon the delineation of separate sections, which include oaths, preliminary instructions, evidence instructions, substantive instructions, damages, general substantive instructions, closing instructions, and supplemental matters.” Id. at 667. In addition, all of the substantive areas were “organized into separate sections and include pertinent standard instructions which [were] reproduced within each substantive section, or, where necessary, tailored to the specific substantive area.” Id. At the time of reorganizing the civil jury instructions, however, the Court noted that proposed substantive instructions had not yet been filed by the Committee for Unlawful Retaliation and Products Liability. The instant petition pertains to the substantive area of Unlawful Retaliation.

Proposed new jury instructions 415.1 (Introduction); 415.2 (Summary of Claims and Defenses); 415.7 (Legal Cause); 415.8 (Preliminary Issue — Adverse Employment Action); 415.9 (Burden of Proof on Preliminary Issue); 415.10 (Issues on Plaintiffs Claim); and 415.11 (Burden of Proof on Claim), all follow the general format for the civil instructions of the representative areas previously authorized by the Court and are therefore authorized. The Court also authorizes for publication and use, as proposed, new instructions 415.4 (Retaliation; Adverse Employment Action); 415.6 (Legal Cause — Retaliation); 415.12 (Unlawful Retaliation Damages); 415.13 (Defense Issue on Damages (Mitigation — Discharge)); and 415.14 (Reduction of Damages to Present Value). Lastly, the Court authorizes proposed new instructions 415.3 (Greater Weight of the Evidence) and 415.5 (Protected Activity), with slight modification. Proposed instruction 415.3 is modified to exclude paragraph 3 of the Notes On Use For 415.3, “ ‘Preponderance of evidence’ and ‘burden of proof,’” to conform with the “Greater Weight of the Evidence” instructions under 401.3 (General Negligence); 402.3 (Professional Negligence); 404.3 (Insurer’s Bad Faith); 405.3 (Defamation); 406.3 (Malicious Prosecution); 407.3 (False Imprisonment); 408.3 (Tor-tious Interference with Business Relationships); 409.3 (Misrepresentation); 410.3 (Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress); 412.5 (Contribution Among Tortfeasors); and 413.3 (Claim for Personal Injury Protection Insurance (PIP) Benefits (Medical Benefits Only)). Paragraph 2 of the Notes On Use For 415.5 for proposed instruction 415.5 is modified to reflect that in addressing the claimant’s burden of proof under section 448.102(3), Florida Statutes (2011), each of the federal district courts in Florida has held that Florida’s private-sector whistle-blower provisions, sections 448.101-105, Florida Statutes, require proof of an actual violation of law, as opposed to a reasonable, good faith violation.

The instructions, as set forth in the appendix to this opinion, are authorized for publication and use. New language is indicated by underlining. In authorizing the publication and use of these instructions, we express no opinion on the correctness of the instructions and remind all interested parties that this authorization forecloses neither requesting an additional or alternative instruction nor contesting the legal correctness of the instructions. We further caution all interested parties that any notes and comments associated with the instructions reflect only the opinion of the Committee and are not necessarily indicative of the views of this Court as to their correctness or applicability. The instructions shall be effective when this opinion becomes final.

It is so ordered.

POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

APPENDIX

415 Unlawful Retaliation

415.1 Introduction

415.2 Summary of Claims and Defenses

415.3 Greater Weight of the Evidence

415.4 Retaliation; Adverse Employment Action

415.5 Protected Activity

415.6 Legal Cause — Retaliation

415.7 Legal Cause — Damage

415.8 Preliminary Issue — Adverse Employment Action

415.9 Burden of Proof on Preliminary Issue

415.10 Issues on Plaintiff’s Claim

415.11 Burden of Proof on Claim

415.12 Unlawful Retaliation Damages

415.13 Defense Issue on Damages (Mitigation-Discharge)

415.14 Reduction of Damages to Present Value

NOTE ON USE FOR 415

The instructions in this section are based upon F.S. 448.101-105 (Florida’s private-sector whistle-blower provisions). As to the right to trial by jury, see Fox v. City of Pompano Beach, 984 So.2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), and O’Neal v. Fla. A & M University, 989 So.2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (right to jury trial pursuant to the Whistle-blower Act, F.S. 112.3187-31895); Rodriguez v. Casson-Mark Corp., 2008 WL 2949520 (M.D.Fla. July 28, 2008) (right to jury trial pursuant to the private-sector whistle-blower’s provisions, F.S. 448.101-105).

415.1 INTRODUCTION

Members of the jury, you have now heard and received all of the evidence in this case. I am now going to tell you about the rules of law that you must use in reaching your verdict. [You will recall at the beginning of the case I told you that if, at the end of the case I decided that different law applies, I would tell you so. These instructions are (slightly) different from what I gave you at the beginning and it is these rules of law that you must now follow.] When I finish telling you about the rules of law, the attorneys will present their final arguments and you will then retire to decide your verdict.

NOTES ON USE FOR 415.1

1. When instructing the jury before taking evidence, use instruction 202,1 in lieu of instruction 415.1. See Model Instruction 1. Instruction 415.1 is for instructing the jury after the evidence has been concluded. Use the bracketed language in instruction 415.1 when the final instructions are different from the instructions given at the beginning of the case. If the instructions at the end of the case are different from those given at the beginning of the case, the committee recommends that the court point out the differences with appropriate language in the final instructions, including an explanation for the difference, such as where the court has directed a verdict on an issue.

2. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470(b) authorizes instructing the jury during trial or before or after final argument. The timing of instructions is within the sound discretion of the trial .judge, to be determined on a case-by-case basis, but the committee strongly recommends instructing the jury before final argument.

3. Each juror must be provided with a full set of jury instructions for use during them deliberations. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.470(b). The trial .judge may find it useful to provide these instructions to the jurors when the .judge reads the instructions in open court so that jurors can read along with the .judge, as the judge reads the instructions aloud.

415.2SUMMARY OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

The claim[s] in this case [is][are] as follows: (Claimant) claims that (defendant) retaliated against [him][her] by (describe retaliatory action) because (claimant) (describe activity which claimant alleges caused retaliatory action), and that the (describe retaliatory action) caused [him][her] damage.

(Defendant) denies that claim [and also claims that (Claimant) failed to reduce [his] [her] damages by seeking other similar employment] [and (describe any other affirmative defense) ].

[ ( Claimant) ] [The parties] must prove [his][her][all] claim(s) [and defenses] by the greater weight of the evidence. I will now define some of the terms you will use in deciding this case.

415.3GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE

Greater weight of the evidence means the more persuasive and convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case.

NOTES ON USE FOR 415.3

1. Greater or lesser number of witnesses. The committee recommends that no charge be given regarding the relationship (or lack of relationship) between the greater weight of the evidence and the greater or lesser number of witnesses.

2. Circumstantial evidence. The committee recommends that no charge generally be given distinguishing circumstantial from direct evidence. See Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So.2d 731 (Fla.1960).

415.4RETALIATION; ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION

Retaliation means [discharging] [or] [demoting] [or] [suspending] [or] [taking certain adverse employment action against] an employee because the employee engaged in [a] protected activ-it[y][ies].

[An adverse employment action is retaliation if it affects the terms and conditions of employment and would discourage a reasonable employee in [ (claimant’s) ] position from engaging in [a] [protected activit[y][ies].]]

NOTES ON USE FOR 415.4

1. The definitions of retaliation and adverse employment action are derived from F.S. 448.101(5) and case law. Donovan v. Broward Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 974 So.2d 458, 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (adverse employment action is action which would discourage reasonable employee from making or supporting charge of discrimination).

2, Use the second paragraph of this instruction when plaintiff claims that the defendant imposed an adverse employment action other than or in addition to discharge, suspension or demotion.

415.5 PROTECTED ACTIVITY

Protected activity is:

[disclosing] [or] [threatening to disclose] to (appropriate governmental agency), under oath, in writing, an activity, policy or practice of (defendant) that violated (describe law, rule or regulation) [or]

[providing information to] [or] [testifying before] (appropriate governmental agency, person or entity), which was conducting an [investigation,] [hearing] [or] [inquiry] into an alleged violation of (describe law, rule or regulation) by (defendant) [or]

[objecting to (defendant’s) activity, policy, or practice that violated (describe law, rule, or regulation) ] [or] [refusing to participate in (defendant’s) activity, policy or practice that violated (describe law, rule, or regulation) ] [or] [would have violated] (describe law, rule or regulation), had (plaintiff) participated.

NOTES ON USE FOR 415.5

1. The bracketed language is derived from F.S. 448.102(1), (2) and (3).

2. As to whether, under F.S. 448.102(3), a claimant must prove an actual violation of law as opposed to a reasonable, good faith belief that a violation of law has occurred, all three federal district courts sitting in Florida have held that the plaintiff must prove an actual violation of law. See, e.g., Paulet v. Farlie, Turner & Co., LLC, 2010 WL 2232662, at *2 (S.D.Fla. June 2, 2010); Smith v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., 2009 WL 903624, at *7 (N.D.Fla. Mar. 31, 2009); White v. Purdue Pharma, Inc., 369 F.Supp.2d 1335, 1336 (M.D.Fla.2005); but see Padron v. Bell-South Telecomms., Inc., 196 F.Supp.2d 1250, 1255 (S.D.Fla.2002) (in dicta, court noted that plaintiffs reasonable belief that violation of law occurred is sufficient).

415.6 LEGAL CAUSE-RETALIATION

Protected activity is a legal cause of [discharge] [suspension] [demotion] [or] [ (describe adverse employment action) ] if the protected activity was a motivating factor that made a difference in (defendant’s) decision. The protected activity need not be the only factor motivating (defendant’s) decision.

You may find that protected activity was a motivating factor in (defendant’s) decision if you find (defendant’s) stated reason(s) for its decision(s) [was] [were] not the real reason(s), but [was] [were] given to hide the retaliation.

NOTES ON USE FOR 415.6

1. This instruction is based on F.S. 448.102 and 448.103(c).

2. On the issue of causation, Florida and federal courts have followed federal decisions construing provisions in Title VII that make it unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee “because” the employee made a charge against the employer or opposed an employer’s unlawful practice. Rice-Lamar v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 853 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (Title VII retaliation analysis applied to claim arising under Florida’s Whistle-blower Act); see also Sierminski v. Transouth Financial Corp., 216 F.3d 945 (11th Cir.2000) (Title VII retaliation analysis applied to claim arising under Florida’s private-sector whistle-blower provisions).

3. This instruction is derived from the Eleventh Circuit’s pattern instruction for retaliation claims. See 1.10.3 Miscellaneous Issues, Retaliation, Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (Civil Cases) 2005. The Eleventh Circuit’s instruction places the burden of persuasion on the issue of causation on the employee and requires the employee to show that the protected activity was a “motivating factor that made a difference” in the employer’s decision.

4. The second paragraph of 415.6 is a permissive inference pretext instruction. There is disagreement among the circuits as to whether a pretext instruction is required in Title VII discrimination and retaliation cases. The weight of authority supports requiring a pretext instruction when the .jury could find that the employer’s explanation is false and could infer from the falsity that the employer is dissembling to cover up an unlawful purpose. See Ratliff v. City of Gainesville, 256 F.3d 355 (5th Cir.2001). Other circuits do not require an instruction, but permit one in the trial judge’s discretion. See Palmer v. Bd. of Regents, 208 F.3d 969 (11th Cir.2000),

415.7LEGAL CAUSE — DAMAGE

[Discharge] [suspension] [demotion] [or] [ (describe adverse employment action) ] is a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] if it directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such damage, so that it can reasonably be said that, but for the [discharge] [suspension] [demotion] [or] [ (describe adverse employment action) ], the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] would not have occurred.

415.8 PRELIMINARY ISSUE-ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION

On (claimant’s) claim there is a preliminary issue for you to decide. That issue is whether (describe the alleged conduct) was an adverse employment action.

NOTE ON USE 415.8

Use instruction 415.8 when plaintiff claims that the defendant imposed adverse employment action other than or in addition to discharge, suspension or demotion.

415.9 BURDEN OF PROOF ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE

If the greater weight of the evidence does not support (claimant’s) claim on this issue, that (describe alleged conduct) was an adverse employment action, then [your verdict on the claim of (claimant) should be for (defendant). However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports the claim of (claimant) on this issue, that (describe the alleged conduct) was an adverse employment action, your decision on that issue should be for (claimant). You shall then decide the other issues on (claimant’s) claim.]

* [your decision on that issue should be for (defendant). However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports the claim of (claimant) on this issue, that (describe the alleged conduct) was an adverse employment action, your decision on that issue should be for (claimant). You shall then decide the other issues on (claimant’s) claim.]

NOTES ON USE FOR 415.9

1. Give instruction 415.9 if instructing; the jury on the preliminary issue from instruction 415.8.

2. * Give this portion of the charge when plaintiff claims defendant imposed adverse employment action in addition to discharge, suspension or demotion.

415.10ISSUES ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM

The law prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for engaging in protected activity.

The [next] issue(s) you must decide on the claim of (claimant) against (defendant) are whether (defendant) retaliated against (claimant) by [discharging] [suspending] [demoting] [him][her][or] (describe adverse employment action) because (claimant) engaged in protected activity and, if so, whether the [discharge] [suspension] [demotion] [or] [ (describe adverse employment action) ] was a legal cause of [loss] [injury] or [damage] to (claimant).

NOTE ON USE FOR 415.10

If there are issues concerning vicarious liability that require a preemptive instruction or jury resolution, see (and modify, as necessary) instructions 401.13, 401.14, and 401.17.

415.11BURDEN OF PROOF ON CLAIM

If the greater weight of the evidence does not support the claim of (claimant) then your verdict should be for (defendant).

However, if the greater weight of the evidence supports the claim of (claimant), [then your verdict should be for (claimant) and against (defendant) ] [then you shall consider the defense[s] raised by (defendant) ].

[If the greater weight of the evidence supports the defense, your verdict should be for (defendant). However, if the greater weight of the evidence does not support the defense, your verdict should be for (claimant) and against (defendant).]

415.12UNLAWFUL RETALIATION DAMAGES

If you find for (defendant), you will not consider the matter of damages. But if you find for (claimant), you should award (claimant) an amount of money that the greater weight of the evidence shows will fairly and adequately compensate [him] [her] for such damage, including any such damage as (claimant) is reasonably certain to incur in the future. You shall consider the following elements:

[any] [the difference between] lost wages and benefits to the date of trial [and what (claimant) earned during that time].

[any wages and benefits to be lost in the future.]

(other compensatory damages allowable at law.)

[any emotional pain and mental anguish experienced in the past or to be experienced in the future. There is no exact standard for measuring such damages. The amount should be fair and just in the light of the evidence.]

NOTES ON USE FOR 415.12

1. As to whether future lost wages, (i.e., “front pay”) are awardable in a .jury trial pursuant to F.S. 448.103(2), see U.S. E.E.O.C. v. W & O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 619 (11th Cir.2000) (front pay is equitable remedy in Title VII case and is not decided by .jury); O’Neal v. Fla. A & M Univ., 989 So.2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (under Florida’s Whistle-blower Act, front pay is equitable relief).

2. As to whether emotional damages are awardable in a jury trial pursuant to F.S. 448.103(2), see Mcintyre v. Delhaize America, Inc., 2009 WL 161708 (M.D.Fla. January 22, 2009) and Wood v. Cellco P’ship, 2007 WL 917300 (M.D.Fl. March 23, 2007) (damages for emotional distress recoverable in whistle-blower action pursuant to F.S. 448.103); Scott v. Otis Elevator Co., 572 So.2d 902 (Fla.1990) (damages for emotional distress recoverable in retaliatory discharge action pursuant to provision of workers’ compensation act, F.S. 440.205).

415.13 DEFENSE ISSUE ON DAMAGES (MITIGATION-DISCHARGE)

As a defense to (claimant’s) damages claim for retaliatory discharge, (defendant) claims that (claimant) could have reduced [his][her] damages by making a reasonable effort to [seek] [retain] comparable employment. Comparable employment means alternative employment similar to (claimant’s) former job in the nature of the work, responsibilities and skills required. (Claimant) need not accept employment that is unsuitable or demeaning when compared with (claimant’s) former job.

If the greater weight of the evidence supports (defendant’s) claim that there was comparable employment available to (claimant) and that (claimant) failed to make a reasonable effort to [seek] [keep] such employment, then you should reduce any damages you award to (claimant) by the amount that (claimant) could have earned from the comparable employment.

If however, the greater weight of the evidence does not support (defendant’s) claim that there was comparable employment available to (claimant) and that (claimant) failed to make a reasonable effort to [seek] [retain] that employment, then your verdict should be for (claimant) in the total amount of [his][her] damages for lost wages and benefits.

NOTES ON USE FOR 415.13

1. This instruction does not use the term “duty to mitigate” because this is more accurately an application of the doctrine of avoidable consequences and “duty” implies a mandatory obligation. See System Components Corp. v. Fla. Dept. of Transp., 14 So.3d 967, 982 (Fla.2009).

2, As to plaintiffs “duty to mitigate” damages in cases involving wrongful discharge, see Zayre Corp. v. Creech, 497 So.2d 706, 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation v. Rievman, 370 So.2d 33, 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Punkar v. King Plastic Corp., 290 So.2d 505, 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).

415.14 REDUCTION OF DAMAGES TO PRESENT VALUE

Any amount of damages which you allow for wages and benefits to be lost in the future should be reduced to its present money value, and only the present money value of those future economic damages should be included in your verdict.

The present money value of future economic damages is the sum of money needed now which, together with what that sum will earn in the future, will compensate (claimant) for these losses as they are actually experienced in future years.

NOTES ON USE FOR 415.14

1. Designing a standard instruction for reduction of damages to present value is complicated by the fact that there are several different methods used by economists and courts to arrive at a present value determination. See, e.g., Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Ageloff, 552 So.2d 1089 (Fla.1989) and Renuart Lumber Yards v. Levine, 49 So.2d 97 (Fla.1950) (using approach similar to calculation of cost of annuity); Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer, 462 U.S. 523, 103 S.Ct. 2541, 76 L.Ed.2d 768 (1983), and Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So.2d 185 (Fla.1953) (lost stream of income approach); Beaulieu v. Elliott, 434 P.2d 665 (Alaska 1967) (total offset method); Culver v. Slater Boat Co., 688 F.2d 280 (5th Cir.1982) and Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Garrison, 336 So.2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (discussing real interest rate discount method and inflation/market rate discount methods); and Bould v. Touchette, 349 So.2d 1181 (Fla.1977) (even without evidence, juries may consider effects of inflation).

2, Until the Florida Supreme Court or the legislature adopts one approach to the exclusion of other methods of calculating present money value, the committee assumes that the present value of future economic damages is a finding to be made by the jury on the evidence; or, if the parties offer no evidence to control the finding, that the jury will properly resort to its own common knowledge as guided by instruction 415.14 and by argument. See Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Burdi, 427 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

      . The Committee sought to amend the Products Liability civil jury instructions in In re: Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases—Report No. 09-10 (Products Liability), 91 So.3d 785 (Fla.2012). The Court issued its opinion in that case on May 17, 2012. Id., 91 So.3d 785.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    In re AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA PROBATE RULES.
    No. SC11-1575.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    July 12, 2012.
    Tasha K. Pepper-Dickinson, Co-Chair, and John Christopher Moran, Co-Chair, Florida Probate Rules Committee, West Palm Beach, FL; John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, and Krys Godwin, Bar Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner.
    Dorothy C. Simpson, Union City, Georgia; Carol K. Freeman, P.A., Spring Hill, FL, Responding with Comments.
   PER CURIAM.

Previously in this case, on September 28, 2011, the Court amended the Florida Probate Rules in response to proposals by The Florida Bar’s Probate Rules Committee (Committee). See In re Amendments to the Florida Probate Rules, 73 So.3d 205 (Fla.2011). In particular, subdivision (d)(2) of rule 5.025 (Adversary Proceedings) was amended to exclude Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 (Motions for Costs and Attorneys’ Fees) from the requirement that the Rules of Civil Procedure govern adversary probate and guardianship proceedings. Cf. Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure (Rule 12.525), 897 So.2d 467 (Fla.2005) (adopting new Florida Family Law Rule 12.525 to provide that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 shall not apply to proceedings governed by the family law rules). Because the amendments were not published for comment prior to adoption, the Court allowed sixty days in which interested persons could file comments. In re Amendments to the Florida Probate Rules, 73 So.3d at 206-07.

A comment was filed suggesting the Court explicitly state that the amendments to rule 5.025(d)(2) apply to all cases “open or reopened” as of September 28, 2011, the effective date of the amendments. In its response, the Committee states that it agrees and believes that a clarification regarding the amendments will help avoid confusion, litigation, and possibly inconsistent application of the rule. Cf. Montello v. Montello, 961 So.2d 257, 258-59 (Fla.2007) (clarifying that Florida Family Law Rule 12.525 applies to all cases pending on the date the rule became effective).

As recommended by the Committee, we clarify that the amendments to Florida Probate Rule 5.025(d)(2) apply to all proceedings commenced on or after the September 28, 2011, effective date. The amendments also apply to all proceedings that were pending on the effective date, but only as to all judgments, orders, or notices that were filed on or after that date.

It is so ordered.

POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

      . We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(e).


text:
    In re AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 2.425.
    No. SC11-2142.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    July 12, 2012.
    Keith H. Park, Chair, Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, West Palm Beach, FL, Judge Donald E. Scaglione, Chair, Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, Fifth Judicial Circuit, Brooksville, FL, and Jill Marie Hampton, Chair, Traffic Court Rules Committee, Private Counsel, LLC, Orlando, FL; John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, and Krys Godwin, Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner.
    Blaise Trettis, Office of the Public Defender, Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, Viera, FL, Responding with comments.
   PER CURIAM.

The Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, and the Traffic Court Rules Committee have filed a joint out-of-cycle report proposing amendments to recently adopted Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425 (Minimization of the Filing of Sensitive Information). See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(f). The proposals are in response to a request by the Court for the rules committees to “to work together to propose a rule or rules similar to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1 (Privacy Protection for Filings Made with the Court) to govern the filing of sensitive personal information in criminal and traffic proceedings.” In re Implementation of Comm. on Privacy and Court Records Recommendations, 78 So.3d 1045, 1051 (Fla.2011). We have jurisdiction and adopt the amendments as proposed.

BACKGROUND

Subdivision (b)(8) of rule 2.425, which the Court adopted on an interim basis, exempts from the minimization requirements of the new rule filings in traffic and criminal proceedings. Id. at 1050. The Court adopted the exemption at the urging of “the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, as well as numerous Florida criminal justice organizations.” Id. However, the Court determined that “filings in criminal and traffic cases contain a large portion of the personal information filed with our courts and a ‘blanket’ exception for those filings would not be necessary if a finely tailored rule can be drafted to govern them” and asked the rules committees to propose such a rule. Id. at 1051. In response to the Court’s request, the rules committees propose amending subdivision (b)(8) to specify what types of documents in criminal and traffic cases are exempt from the requirements of subdivision (a) (Limitations for Court Filings) of the rule.

The Florida Bar Board of Governors unanimously approved the proposed amendments. The Court published them for comment. One comment was filed with the Court, to which the committees filed a joint response. After considering the proposed amendments, the comment, and the committees’ response, we adopt the proposed amendments.

AMENDMENTS

According to the report, amended subdivision (b)(8) of the new rule is modeled after Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1(b) (Exemptions from the Redaction Requirement). As amended, the subdivision specifies what types of documents in criminal and traffic cases are exempt from the minimization requirements of subdivision (a) of the rule. New subdivisions (b)(8)(A)-(b)(8)(D) incorporate subdivisions (b)(6)-(b)(9) of the federal rule. New subdivisions (b)(8)(E)-(b)(8)(G) do not have counterparts in the federal rule. However, we defer to the committees’ determination that the documents included in these subdivisions should also be exempt from the requirements of the rule. Nevertheless, we ask the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee to monitor the applieation of amended subdivision (b)(8) and to report back to the Court by April 1, 2014, with recommendations as to whether the exceptions for filings in criminal and traffic cases can be further narrowed to limit the number of exempted documents.

Accordingly, Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425 is hereby amended as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. New language is underscored; deleted language is stricken through. These amendments shall become effective immediately upon the release of this opinion.

It is so ordered.

POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

APPENDIX

RULE 2.425 MINIMIZATION OF THE FILING OF SENSITIVE INFORMATION

(a) [No Change]

(b) Exceptions. Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following:

(l)-(7) [No Change]
(8) In tTraffic and criminal proceedings
(A) a pro se filing;
(B) a court filing that is related to a criminal matter or investigation and that is prepared before the filing of a criminal charge or is not filed as part of any docketed criminal case;
(C) an arrest or search warrant or any information in support thereof;
(D) a charging document and an affidavit or other documents filed in support of any charging document, including any driving records;
(E) a statement of particulars;
(F) discovery material introduced into evidence or otherwise filed with the court; and
(G) all information necessary for the proper issuance and execution of a subpoena duces tecum;
(9)-(10) [No Change]
(c)-(e) [No Change]

      . See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

      . The Criminal Procedure Rules Committee and criminal justice organizations maintained that much of the information filed in criminal cases that would have to be truncated or redacted under the new rule must be available to defense attorneys, law enforcement, and others in the criminal justice system. They also feared that application of the rule could result in substantial workload issues for prosecutors’ offices which would be required to truncate or redact massive amounts of information routinely contained in arrest affidavits, search warrants, charging documents, traffic citations, police reports, and discovery documents filed with the court. See 78 So.3d at 1051.

      . Subdivision (b)(8)(A) exempts pro se filings. Subdivision (b)(8)(B) exempts court filings that are related to criminal matters or investigations and that are prepared before the filing of criminal charges or are not filed as part of any docketed criminal case. Subdivision (b)(8)(C) exempts arrest or search warrants or any information in support thereof. Subdivision (b)(8)(D) exempts charging documents and affidavits or other documents filed in support of any charging document, including any driving records.

      .Subdivision (b)(8)(E) exempts statements of particulars. Subdivision (b)(8)(F) exempts discovery materials introduced into evidence or otherwise filed with the court. Subdivision (b)(8)(G) exempts information necessary for the proper issuance and execution of a subpoena duces tecum.


text:
    Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 11-551 re: Kathryn Maxine NELSON.
    No. SC12-941.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    July 12, 2012.
    Miles Ambrose McGrane, III, Chair, Michael L. Schneider, General Counsel, Judicial Qualifications Commission, Tallahassee, FL, For Petitioner.
    Kathryn Maxine Nelson, Fort Pierce, FL.
   PER CURIAM.

We have for review a stipulation between the Judicial Qualifications Commission (“JQC”) and Judge Kathryn Maxine Nelson, as well as the JQC’s findings and recommendation that Judge Nelson be publicly reprimanded for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 12, Fla. Const. For the reasons we explain below, we accept the stipulation and approve the JQC’s findings and recommended sanction.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS

A. Proceedings Before the JQC

This action arose when a Notice of Investigation, dated January 27, 2012, was served on St. Lucie County Court Judge Kathryn Nelson pursuant to rule 6(b) of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission Rules. On March 8, 2012, a hearing was held before the JQC’s Investigative Panel in Orlando, Florida, at which Judge Nelson appeared and testified. On May 9, 2012, the Investigative Panel filed a Notice of Formal Charges against Judge Nelson pursuant to rule 6(f) of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission Rules and article V, section 12(b) of the Florida Constitution. The Notice of Formal Charges stated that the majority of the members of the Investigative Panel found probable cause existed to institute formal proceedings against Judge Nelson.

Specifically, the Notice of Formal Charges alleged that on the evening of October 25, 2011, in Vero Beach, Florida, Judge Nelson was observed driving a vehicle erratically, weaving back and forth between lanes, striking a guardrail several times, and ultimately crashing on a bridge. After initially identifying herself as a judge to the police officer at the scene, Judge Nelson explained to the officer that she lost control of the vehicle because she was talking on her cellular phone. However, the officer smelled alcohol on Judge Nelson’s breath, and noticed that her eyes were glassy and bloodshot. Moreover, the officer observed that Judge Nelson’s clothes were in disarray. At first, Judge Nelson was unable to tell the officer where she was coming from or where she was going, but she later recalled that she may have been at a restaurant. Judge Nelson refused to exit the vehicle and refused to submit to field sobriety exercises. Judge Nelson was taken to the county jail where she refused to submit to a breathalyzer test. The Notice of Formal Charges stated that these acts, if they occurred as alleged, were in violation of Canons 1 and 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

B. The Stipulation

On April 30, 2012, the Investigative Panel of the JQC and Judge Nelson entered into a stipulation pursuant to rule 6(j) of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission Rules. The facts set forth in the stipulation are a reiteration of what was alleged in the Notice of Formal Charges, with two exceptions. The stipulation also states that Judge Nelson did not cause any personal injury or damage to the property of others, and that Judge Nelson entered into a guilty plea to driving under the influence and was sentenced pursuant to the mandatory provisions under Florida law.

The stipulation also expresses that Judge Nelson regrets and apologizes for her actions, and recognizes that her actions “have the effect of lessening the public’s confidence in the judiciary.” Judge Nelson “accepts full responsibility for her actions that put her in violation of Canons 1 and 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct.” Judge Nelson has taken steps to prevent any recurrences of such conduct. Judge Nelson has sought counseling, which she agrees to continue. Judge Nelson has never been charged with any other driving under the influence offenses. The stipulation also reveals that Judge Nelson does not contest the Findings and Recommendation of Discipline.

C. The Findings and Recommendation of Discipline

On May 9, 2012, the Investigative Panel of the JQC filed its Findings and Recommendation of Discipline with this Court. The Investigative Panel finds that violating the law by driving while under the influence violates Canons 1 and 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The JQC concludes that Judge Nelson’s conduct was an “isolated incident and does not demonstrate an unfitness for office.” The JQC recommends that “in the interests of justice, the public welfare and sound juridical administration will be well served by a public reprimand of Judge Nelson.”

II. ANALYSIS

A. Scope of Review

This Court may “accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the [JQC]” and “order that the justice or judge be subjected to appropriate discipline.” Art. V, § 12(e)(1), Fla. Const. Under rule 6(j) of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission Rules, the Investigative Panel may reach an agreement with a judge stipulating to the findings and recommendation as to discipline, and that stipulation shall be transmitted directly to the Supreme Court for review. See Fla. Jud. Qual. Comm’n R. 6(j). When considering whether to approve a stipulation between the JQC and a judge, this Court will “consider both the terms of the stipulation and the findings of the JQC.” In re Downey, 937 So.2d 643, 649 (Fla.2006).

“This Court reviews the findings of the JQC to determine if they are supported by clear and convincing evidence and reviews the recommendation of discipline to determine whether it should be approved.” In re Pando, 903 So.2d 902, 903 (Fla.2005). “In cases where a judge admits to wrongdoing and the JQC’s findings are undisputed this Court will ordinarily conclude that the JQC’s findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence.” In re Diaz, 908 So.2d 334, 337 (Fla.2005). A judge’s admission of the misconduct and the impropriety of that conduct “bolster[s] the JQC’s findings, which we give great weight as we consider its recommendation of discipline.” In re Angel, 867 So.2d 379, 383 (Fla.2004). Although we give the disciplinary recommendation of the JQC great weight, and we give full consideration to the provisions of the stipulation, “the ultimate power and responsibility in making a determination rests with this Court.” In re Kinsey, 842 So.2d 77, 85 (Fla.2003) (quoting In re Davey, 645 So.2d 398, 404 (Fla.1994)).

B. The Findings of the JQC

After a complete review of the record in this case, we conclude that there is clear and convincing evidence to support the JQC’s findings, and that the findings support the stipulation of the JQC and Judge Nelson. In its Findings and Recommendation of Discipline, the JQC found that Judge Nelson’s conduct violated Canons 1 and 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.

Fla.Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 1. As the commentary to this Canon explains, “[pjublic confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility.” Fla.Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 1 cmt. Further, “violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law.” Id.

Canon 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct states:

A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Fla.Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 2A. The commentary to Canon 2A further explains:

Irresponsible or improper conduct by judges erodes public confidence in the judiciary. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety.... The prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge.

Fla.Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 2A cmt. In this case, the evidence established that on October 25, 2011, Judge Nelson crashed a vehicle she was driving after hitting a guardrail several times. The officer on the scene smelled alcohol on Judge Nelson’s breath, and the officer noticed that Judge Nelson had glassy and bloodshot eyes. Judge Nelson subsequently pled guilty to the charge of driving under the influence, a violation of Florida law. Judge Nelson has admitted that her conduct “ha[s] the effect of lessening the public’s confidence in the judiciary,” and she does not contest the JQC’s findings that her conduct violated Canons 1 and 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct. It is clear that on the evening of October 25, 2011, Judge Nelson failed to “participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct,” and personally observe those standards so that the integrity of the judiciary may be preserved. Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 1. In addition, Judge Nelson failed to fulfill her duty to “respect and comply with the law and [to] act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” Fla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 2A. Accordingly, we find that the stipulated facts support the JQC’s findings that Judge Nelson’s conduct violated Canons 1 and 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Moreover, such findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence.

C. Recommended Discipline

Because we have concluded that the findings of the JQC are supported by clear and convincing evidence, we give the findings “persuasive force and great weight” in our consideration of the JQC’s recommended discipline. In re Maloney, 916 So.2d 786, 788 (Fla.2005). “[T]he object of disciplinary proceedings is not for the purpose of inflicting punishment, but rather to gauge a judge’s fitness to serve as an impartial judicial officer.” In re McMillan, 797 So.2d 560, 571 (Fla.2001). Here, the JQC recommends that Judge Nelson be publicly reprimanded. In its Findings and Recommendation of Discipline, the JQC concluded that Judge Nelson’s conduct in driving while under the influence was an isolated incident and does not demonstrate an unfitness for office. Judge Nelson recognizes the inappropriateness of her behavior, accepts full responsibility, and apologizes for her actions. Judge Nelson has sought counseling and agrees to continue the counseling. We agree with the JQC’s recommendation that “in the interests of justice, the public welfare and sound juridical administration will be well served” by a public reprimand of Judge Nelson. Judge Nelson does not contest this recommendation of discipline.

We accept the JQC’s recommendation of a public reprimand for Judge Nelson. Existing precedent suggests that her conduct warrants public reprimand. See, e.g., In re Esquiroz, 654 So.2d 558 (Fla.1995) (approving public reprimand for a judge who pled nolo contendere to a driving under the influence charge, admitted violating canons 1 and 2A, and expressed remorse, and JQC found the incident isolated); In re Gloeckner, 626 So.2d 188 (Fla.1993) (approving a public reprimand for a judge charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol, admitted such conduct violated canons 1 and 2A, and apologized for the incident).

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons expressed, we approve the findings and recommendation of the JQC. We agree with the JQC and hold that a public reprimand is the appropriate discipline in this case. Accordingly, we hereby command Judge Nelson to appear before this Court for administration of a public reprimand at a time to be established by the Clerk of this Court.

It is so ordered.

POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

      . The Notice of Investigation was not filed with this Court.

      . On May 9, 2012, the stipulation was filed with this Court.

      . The stipulation fails to state (1) that Judge Nelson initially identified herself as a judge to the officer, and (2) that she refused to exit the vehicle.

      . Upon an individual’s first conviction for driving under the influence, the trial court must order the revocation of the defendant's driver’s license for a period of not less than 180 days or more than one year. See § 322.28(2)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2011). In addition, the trial court must: fine the defendant not less than $500.00 or more than $1,000.00, see § 316.193(2)(a)1.a., Fla. Stat. (2011), place the defendant on probation for a period not to exceed one year, see § 316.193(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011), require the defendant to complete a substance abuse course, see § 316.193(5), Fla. Stat. (2011), order the defendant to participate in public service or community work project for a minimum of fifty hours, see § 316.193(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011), and order the impoundment or immobilization of the vehicle that was "operated by or in the actual control of the defendant or any one vehicle registered in the defendant’s name” for ten days, see id. The defendant also faces up to six months in jail. See § 316.193(2)(a)2.a., Fla. Stat. (2011). Penalties are increased if the defendant "causes or contributes to causing: [djamage to the property or person of another,” or "[sjerious bodily injury” or death of another. See § 316.193(3)(c)1.2.3„ Fla. Stat. (2011). The penalties are also enhanced if the defendant has a blood-alcohol level or breath-alcohol level of 0.15 or higher, or if the defendant is "accompanied in the vehicle by a person under the age of 18 years.” See § 316.193(4), Fla. Stat. (2011).

      .Pursuant to the stipulation, Judge Nelson waived her right to a plenary hearing before the Hearing Panel of the JQC, and the parties waived oral argument before this Court.

      . The Florida Constitution provides:
      (1) The supreme court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the [judicial qualifications] commission and it may order that the justice or judge be subjected to appropriate discipline, or be removed from office with termination of compensation for willful or persistent failure to perform judicial duties or for other conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary demonstrating a present unfitness to hold office, or be involuntarily retired for any permanent disability that seriously interferes with the performance of judicial duties. Malafides, scienter or moral turpitude on the part of a justice or judge shall not be required for removal from office of a justice or judge whose conduct demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office. After the filing of a formal proceeding and upon request of the investigative panel, the supreme court may suspend the justice or judge from office, with or without compensation, pending final determination of the inquiry.
      Art. V, § 12(c)(1), Fla. Const.


text:
    In re AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE.
    No. SC12-1205.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    July 12, 2012.
    Ashley J. McCorvey Myers, Chair, Family Law Rules Committee, Jacksonville, FL; John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, and Ellen H. Sloyer, Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner.
   PER CURIAM.

The Florida Bar’s Family Law Rules Committee (Committee) has filed a “fast-track” out-of-cycle report proposing amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, which implement new legislation created by chapter 2012-153, section 3, Laws of Florida. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(e). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

The Committee proposes amendments to rules 12.010 (Scope, Purpose, and Title); 12.070 (Process); 12.080 (Service of Pleadings and Filing of Documents); 12.200 (Case Management and Pretrial Conferences); 12.285 (Mandatory Disclosure); 12.490 (General Magistrates); 12.492 (Special Magistrates); 12.610 (Injunctions for Domestic, Repeat, Dating, and Sexual Violence); and 12.750 (Family Self-Help Programs). The proposed amendments are in response to chapter 2012-153, section 3, Laws of Florida, which creates section 784.0485, Florida Statutes and goes into effect October 1, 2012. See Ch.2012-153, § 6, Laws of Fla. New section 784.0485(1) creates “a cause of action for an injunction for protection against stalking.” The Committee proposes amending references throughout the Family Law Rules of Procedure to “injunctions for domestic, repeat, dating, and sexual violence” to read “injunctions for protection against domestic, repeat, dating, and sexual violence, and stalking.”

After considering the Committee’s proposals and reviewing the relevant legislation, we amend the Family Law Rules of Procedure as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by underscoring; deletions are indicated by struck-through type. The amendments shall take effect on October 1, 2012, at 12:01 a.m. Because the amendments were not published for comment prior to their adoption, interested persons shall have sixty days from the date of this opinion in which to file comments with the Court.

It is so ordered.

POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

APPENDIX

RULE 12.010. SCOPE, PURPOSE, AND TITLE

(a) Scope.

(1) These rules apply to all actions concerning family matters, including actions eoncerninginjunctions for protection against domestic, repeat, dating, and sexual violence, and stalking, except as otherwise provided by the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure or the Florida Probate Rules. “Family matters,” “family law matters,” or “family law cases” as used within these rules include, but are not limited to, matters arising from dissolution of marriage, annulment, support unconnected with dissolution of marriage, paternity, child support, an action involving a parenting plan for a minor child or children (except as otherwise provided by the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure), proceedings for temporary or concurrent custody of minor children by extended family, adoption, proceedings for emancipation of a minor, declaratory judgment actions related to premarital, marital, or postmarital agreements (except as otherwise provided, when applicable, by the Florida Probate Rules), injunctions for protection against domestic, repeat, dating, and sexual violence, and stalking, and all proceedings for modification, enforcement, and civil contempt of these actions.
(2) [No Change]

(b)-(c) [No Change]

RULE 12.070. PROCESS

(a)-(b) [No Change]

(c) Constructive Service.

(1) [No Change]
(2) For constructive service of process in all other cases, an affidavit of diligent search and inquiry in substantial conformity with Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure Form 12.913(b), must be filed.

(d) Domestic, Repeat, Dating, and Sexual Violence, and Stalking Proceedings. This rule does not govern service of process in proceedings for injunctions for protection against domestic, repeat, dating, and sexual violence, and stalking proceed-ingSr

RULE 12.080. SERVICE OF PLEADINGS AND FILING OF PA-PERSDOCUMENTS

(a) Service.

(1) Family Law Actions Generally. Service of pleadings and papersdocu-ments after commencement of all family law actions except proceedings for injunctions for protection against domestic, repeat, dating, and sexual violence, and stalking shall be as set forth in Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516, except that rule 2.516 shall also apply to service on the party during the attorney’s limited appearance as provided in rule 12.040(f) and be expanded as set forth in subdivisions (b) and (c) to include additional requirements for service of recommended orders and for service on defaulted parties.
(2) Domestic, Repeat, Dating, and Sexual Violence, and Stalking Actions. Service of pleadings and papers-documents regarding proceedings-for injunctions against domestic, repeat, dating, and sexual violence, and stalking actions shall be governed by Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.610, where it is in conflict with this rule.

(b) Service and Preparation of Orders and Judgments. A copy of all orders or judgments involving family law matters except proceedings for injunctions for protection against domestic, repeat, dating, and sexual violence, and stalking shall be transmitted by the court or under its direction to all parties at the time of entry of the order or judgment. The court may require that recommended orders, orders, or judgments be prepared by a party. If the court requires that a party prepare the recommended order, order, or judgment, the party shall furnish the court with stamped, addressed envelopes to all parties for service of the recommended order, order, or judgment. The court may also require that any proposed recommended order, order, or judgment that is prepared by a party be furnished to all parties no less than 24 hours before submission to the court of the recommended order, order, or judgment.

(c) [No Change]

Commentary

[No Change]

Committee Notes

[No Change]

RULE 12.200. CASE MANAGEMENT AND PRETRIAL CONFERENCES

(a) Case Management Conference.

(1)Family Law Proceedings, Generally. A case management conference may be ordered by the court at any time on the court’s initiative. A party may request a case management conference 30 days after service of a petition or complaint. At such a conference the court may:
(A)-(H) [No Change]
(I) refer issues to a magistrate for findings of fact, if consent is obtained as provided in rules 12.490 and 12.492 and if no significant history of domestic, repeat, dating, or sexual violence, or stalking that would compromise the process is involved in the case;
(J) refer the parties to mediation if no significant history of domestic, repeat, dating, or sexual violence, or stalking that would compromise the mediation process is involved in the case and consider allocation of expenses related to the referral; or refer the parties to counseling if no significant history of domestic, repeat, dating, or sexual violence, or stalking that would compromise the process is involved in the case and consider allocation of expenses related to the referral;
(K) coordinate voluntary binding arbitration consistent with Florida law if no significant history of domestic, repeat, dating, or sexual violence, or stalking that would compromise the process is involved in the case;
(L)-(O) [No Change]

(2) [No Change]

(b)-(d) [No Change]

Commentary

[No Change]

Committee Note

[No Change]

RULE 12.285. MANDATORY DISCLOSURE

(a) Application.

(1) Scope. This rule shall apply to all proceedings within the scope of these rules except proceedings involving adoption, simplified dissolution, enforcement, contempt, injunctions for protection against domestic, repeat, dating, or sexual violence, or stalking, and uncontested dissolutions when the respondent is served by publication and does not file an answer. Additionally, no financial affidavit or other documents shall be required under this rule from a party seeking attorneys’ fees, suit money, or costs, if the basis for the request is solely under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, or any successor statute. Except for the provisions as to financial affidavits and child support guidelines worksheets, any portion of this rule may be modified by order of the court or agreement of the parties.
(2) — (3)

(b)-(c) [No Change]

(d) Disclosure Requirements for Temporary Financial Relief. In any proceeding for temporary financial relief heard within 45 days of the service of the initial pleading or within any extension of the time for complying with mandatory disclosure granted by the court or agreed to by the parties, the following documents shall be served on the other party:

(1) — (2) [No Change]
(3) IRS forms W=2, 1099, and K=1 for the past year, if the income tax return for that year has not been prepared.
(4) [No Change]

(e)-(m) [No Change]

Commentary

[No Change]

Committee Notes

[No Change]

RULE 12.490. GENERAL MAGISTRATES

(a)-(b) [No Change]

(c) General Powers and Duties. Every general magistrate shall perform all of the duties that pertain to the office according to the practice in chancery and rules of court and under the direction of the court except those duties related to injunctions for protection against domestic, repeat, dating, and sexual violence, and stalking. A general magistrate shall be empowered to administer oaths and conduct hearings, which may include the taking of evidence. All grounds for disqualification of a judge shall apply to general magistrates.

(d)-(g) [No Change]

Commentary

[No Change]

Committee Note

[No Change]

RULE 12.492. SPECIAL MAGISTRATES

(a) Special Magistrates. The court may appoint members of The Florida Bar as special magistrates for any particular service required by the court in a family law matter other than those involving injunctions for protection against domestic, repeat, dating, and sexual violence, and stalking. The special magistrates shall be governed by all the provisions of law and rules relating to general magistrates except as otherwise provided by this rule. Additionally, they shall not be required to make oath or give bond unless specifically required by the order appointing them. Upon a showing that the appointment is advisable, a person other than a member of The Florida Bar may be appointed.

(b)-(h) [No Change]

Commentary

[No Change]

Committee Note

[No Change]

RULE 12.610. INJUNCTIONS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST DOMESTIC, REPEAT, DATING, AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE, AND STALKING

(a) Application. This rule shall apply only to temporary and permanent injunctions for protection against domestic violence and temporary and permanent injunctions for protection against repeat violence, dating violence, or sexual violence, and stalking. All other injunctive relief sought in cases to which the Family Law Rules apply shall be governed by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610.

(b) Petitions.

(1) Requirements for Use.
(A)-(D) [No Change]
(E) Stalking. Any person may file a petition for an injunction for protection against stalking as provided by law.
(2) Service of Petitions.
(A) [No Change]
(B) Repeat Violence, Dating Violence, and Sexual Violence, and Stalking. Personal service by a law enforcement agency is required. The clerk of the court shall furnish a copy of the petition for an injunction for protection against repeat violence, dating violence, or sexual violence, or stalking, temporary injunction (if one has been entered), and notice of hearing to the appropriate sheriff or law enforcement agency of the county where the respondent resides or can be found for expeditious service of process.
(C) Additional Documents. Service of pleadings in cases of domestic, repeat, dating, or sexual violence, or stalking other than petitions, supplemental petitions, and orders granting injunctions shall be governed by rule 12.080, except that service of a motion to modify or vacate an injunction should be by notice that is reasonably calculated to apprise the nonmoving party of the pendency of the proceedings.
(3) Consideration by Court. Upon the filing of a petition, the court shall set a hearing to be held at the earliest possible time. A denial of a petition for an ex parte injunction shall be by written order noting the legal grounds for denial. When the only ground for denial is no appearance of an immediate and present danger of domestic, repeat, dating, or sexual violence, or stalking, the court shall set a full hearing on the petition for injunction with notice at the earliest possible time. Nothing herein affects a petitioner’s right to promptly amend any petition, or otherwise be heard in person on any petition consistent with these rules.
(4)Forms.
(A) Provision of Forms. The clerk of the court or family or domestic/repeat/dating/sexual-vioiencein-junctions for protection intake personnel shall provide simplified forms, including instructions for completion, for any person whose circumstances meet the requirements of this rule and shall assist the petitioner in obtaining an injunction for protection against domestic, repeat, dating, or sexual violence, or stalking as provided by law.
(B) [No Change]

(c) Orders of Injunction.

(1) Consideration by Court.
(A) Temporary Injunction. For the injunction for protection to be issued ex parte, it must appear to the court that an immediate and present danger of domestic, repeat, dating, or sexual violence or stalking exists. In an ex parte hearing for the purpose of obtaining an ex parte temporary injunction, the court may limit the evidence to the verified pleadings or affidavits for a determination of whether there is an imminent danger that the petitioner will become a victim of domestic, repeat, dating, or sexual violence or stalking. If the respondent appears at the hearing or has received reasonable notice of the hearing, the court may hold a hearing on the petition. If a verified petition and affidavit are amended, the court shall consider the amendments as if originally filed.
(B) Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence or Stalking. A hearing shall be conducted.
(C) [No Change]
(2) Issuing of Injunction.
(A) Standardized Forms. The temporary and permanent injunction forms approved by the Florida Supreme Court for domestic, repeat, dating, and sexual violence, and stalking injunctions shall be the forms used in the issuance of injunctions under chapters 741 and 784, Florida Statutes. Additional standard provisions, not inconsistent with the standardized portions of those forms, may be added to the special provisions section of the temporary and permanent injunction forms, or at the end of each section to which they apply, on the written approval of the chief judge of the circuit, and upon final review and written approval by the chief justice. Copies of such additional standard provisions, once approved by the chief justice, shall be sent to the chair of the Family Law Rules Committee of The Florida Bar, the chair of the Steering Committee on Families and Children in the Court, and the chair of The Governor’s Task Force on Domestic and Sexual Violence.
(B) Bond. No bond shall be required by the court for the entry of an injunction for protection against domestic, repeat, dating, or sexual violence, or stalking. The clerk of the court shall provide the parties with sufficient certified copies of the order of injunction for service.
(3) Service of Injunctions.
(A) Temporary Injunction. A temporary injunction for protection against domestic, repeat, dating, or sexual violence, or stalking must be personally served. When the respondent has been served previously with the temporary injunction and has failed to appear at the initial hearing on the temporary injunction, any subsequent pleadings seeking an extension of time may be served on the respondent by the clerk of the court by certified mail in lieu of personal service by a law enforcement officer. If the temporary injunction was issued after a hearing because the respondent was present at the hearing or had reasonable notice of the hearing, the injunction may be served in the manner provided for a permanent injunction.
(B) Permanent Injunction.
(i) Party Present at Hearing. The parties may acknowledge receipt of the permanent injunction for protection against domestic, repeat, dating, or sexual violence, or stalking in writing on the face of the original order. If a party is present at the hearing and that party fails or refuses to acknowledge the receipt of a certified copy of the injunction, the clerk shall cause the order to be served by mailing certified copies of the injunction to the parties who were present at the hearing at the last known address of each party. Service by mail is complete upon mailing. When an order is served pursuant to this subdivision, the clerk shall prepare a written certification to be placed in the court file specifying the time, date, and method of service and within 24 hours shall forward a copy of the injunction and the clerk’s affidavit of service to the sheriff with jurisdiction over the residence of the petitioner. This procedure applies to service of orders to modify or vacate injunctions for protection against domestic, repeat, dating, or sexual violence, or stalking.
(ii) Party not Present at Hearing. Within 24 hours after the court issues, continues, modifies, or vacates an injunction for protection against domestic, repeat, dating, or sexual violence, or stalking the clerk shall forward a copy of the injunction to the sheriff with jurisdiction over the residence of the petitioner for service.
(4) Duration.
(A) Temporary Injunction. Any temporary injunction shall be effective for a fixed period not to exceed 15 days. A full hearing shall be set for a date no later than the date when the temporary injunction ceases to be effective. The court may grant a continuance of the temporary injunction and of the full hearing for good cause shown by any party, or upon its own motion for good cause, including failure to obtain service.
(B) Permanent Injunction. Any relief granted by an injunction for protection against domestic, repeat, dating, or sexual violence, or stalking shall be granted for a fixed period or until further order of court. Such relief may be granted in addition to other civil and criminal remedies. Upon petition of the victim, the court may extend the injunction for successive periods or until further order of court. Broad discretion resides with the court to grant an extension after considering the circumstances. No specific allegations are required.
(5) Enforcement. The court may enforce violations of an injunction for protection against domestic, repeat, dating, or sexual violence, or stalking in civil contempt proceedings, which are governed by rule 12.570, or in criminal contempt proceedings, which are governed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840, or, if the violation meets the statutory criteria, it may be prosecuted as a crime under Florida Statutes.
(6) Motion to Modify or Vacate Injunction. The petitioner or respondent may move the court to modify or vacate an injunction at any time. Service of a motion to modify or vacate injunctions shall be governed by subdivision (b)(2) of this rule. However, for service of a motion to modify to be sufficient if a party is not represented by an attorney, service must be in accordance with rule 12.070, or in the alternative, there must be filed in the record proof of receipt of this motion by the nonmoving party personally.
(7) Forms. The clerk of the court or family or domestic/repeat/dating/sexual violenceinjunction for protection intake personnel shall provide simplified forms including instructions, for completion, for the persons whose circumstances meet the requirements of this rule and shall assist in the preparation of the affidavit in support of the violation of an order of injunction for protection against domestic, repeat, dating, or sexual violence, or stalking.

Commentary

[No Change]

Committee Note

[No Change]

RULE 12.750. FAMILY SELF-HELP PROGRAMS

(a)-(Z) [No Change]

(m) Domestic, Repeat, Dating, and Sexual Violence, and Stalking Exclusion. Nothing in this rule shall restrict services provided by the clerk of the court or family or domestic/repeat/datingteexual violenceinj unctions for protection intake personnel pursuant to rule 12.610.

Commentary

[No Change]

      . The rules as shown in the appendix reflect amendments made in In re Amends. to Fla. Rules of Jud. Admin., Fla. Rules of Civ. Pro., Fla. Rules of Crim. Pro., Fla. Probate Rules, Fla. Rules of Traffic Court, Fla. Small Claims Rules, Fla. Rules of Juv. Pro., Fla. Rules of App. Pro., and Fla. Family Law Rules of Pro.—E-mail Service Rule, 2012 WL 2400760 (Fla.2012), which become effective September 1, 2012, at 12:01 a.m. Amendments made in In re Amends. to Fla. Rules of Civ. Pro., Fla. Rules of Jud. Admin., Fla. Rules of Crim. Pro., Fla. Probate Rules, Fla. Small Claims Rules, Fla. Rules of Juv. Pro., Fla. Rules of App. Pro., & Fla. Family Law Rules of Pro.—Electronic Filing, 2012 WL 2865998 (Fla.2012), which become effective in family law divisions April 1, 2013, at 12:01 a.m., are shown in double underscoring and double struck-through type.

      . An original and nine paper copies of all comments must be filed with the Court on or before September 10, 2012, with a certificate of service verifying that a copy has been served on the Committee Chair, Matthew Burns Capstraw, 165 W. Jessup Avenue, Longwood, Florida 32750 and on the Bar Staff Liaison to the Committee, Ellen Sloyer, 651 East Jefferson Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300, as well as a separate request for oral argument if the person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral argument, which may be scheduled in this case. The committee chair has until October 1, 2012 to file a response to any comments filed with the Court. Electronic copies of all comments also must be filed in accordance with the Court’s administrative order In re Mandatory Submission of Electronic Copies of Documents, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC04-84 (Sept. 13, 2004).