Affirmed. See In re Amends. to Fla. R. of Civ. Proc. 1.510, 317 So. 3d 72, 74 (Fla. 2021) (revising summary judgment rule to mirror federal summary judgment standard); In re Amends. to Fla. R. of Civ. Proc. 1.510, 309 So. 3d 192, 193 (Fla. 2020) (approvingly refencing the United States Supreme Courts explanation that “[w]hen opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment”) (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007)); see also Velasquez v. Cardinal Health 414 LLC, No. 20-CIV-60402, 2021 WL 2493087, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jun. 18, 2021) (adopting report and recommendation granting summary judgment for defendant, explaining that “[t]he problem for Plaintiff is that even crediting that testimony, she failed to point to evidence in the record that would support her claims”); Rural Intl Bank Ltd. v. Key Fin. Inv. Grp. LLC, No. 16-22280-Civ, 2017 WL 5891463, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2017) (“[A] partys uncorroborated self-serving testimony cannot prevent summary judgment, particularly if the overwhelming documentary evidence supports the opposite scenario.”) (quoting Vinewood Cap., LLC v. Dar Al-Maal Al-Islami Tr., 541 F. Appx 443, 447 (5th Cir. 2013)); In re Trasylol Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 08-MD-1928, 2010 WL 6098570, at *8 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 8, 2010) (“Plaintiff provides no legal basis for the proposition that a plaintiffs self-serving testimony is sufficient to counter record evidence so as to create a triable issue of fact precluding summary judgment.”).
PER CURIAM.