Whether the trial court's application of federal summary judgment standard violates due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by improperly determining witness credibility and weighing evidence despite genuine disputes of material fact

The Supreme Court of Florida denied review and rehearing due lack of jurisdiction due state appellate court did not provide any basis explanation on its decision. The state court of appeal affirmed a state trial court ’s decision based on federal case law dismissing a negligence tort premises jury case under federal summary judgment standard. The trial court interpreted and construed a federal precedent as if provide discretion to grant summary judgment under federal standard base on an objected video in the existence of genuine dispute of material fact after determined credibility of join eyewitness and weighed on evidences. The question presented is: Whether in holding that under federal summary judgment standard there is discretion to dismiss a jury negligence claim after determine credibility of witness and weigh on evidence regardless any genuine dispute of material facts, does the trial court ’s decision violate due process right under Fourteenth Amendment in direct conflict with this Court ’s decisions in Celotex Corp. v. Catretti Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.\ Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.} Scott v. Harris and contrary to Florida Supreme Court opinion McCain v. Florida Power Corporation!. RELATED CASES • Jessica M Graulau Maldonado v. Orange County Public Library System, No. 2017-CA-6079, Florida 9th Judicial Circuit Court. Judgment entered June 2, 2023. • Jessica M. Graulau Maldonado v. Orange County Public Library System, No. 6D23-2807, Florida 6th District Court of Appeal. Judgment entered October 15, 2024. • Jessica M. Graulau Maldonado v. Orange County Public Library System, No. SC2025-0619, Supreme Court of Florida. Judgment entered May 6, 2025. • Jessica M. Graulau Maldonado v. Orange County Public Library System, No. 5D18-2800, Florida 5 District Court of Appeal. Judgment entered May 31, 2019. ii