CITY OF HALLANDALE, APPELLANT,
v.
GULFSTREAM PARK RACING ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The City of Hallandale appealed a dismissal of its complaint seeking declaratory relief and injunction challenging a state statute exempting parimutuel permit holders from local building and zoning regulations. The court reversed, holding that the city was entitled to proceed with its declaratory decree action and that dismissal should have been without prejudice to allow joinder of an indispensable party.
The court reversed the dismissal, holding that the city was entitled to proceed with its declaratory decree action to contest the interpretation and application of the statute, even if the statute were constitutional on its face. The court concluded that any dismissal based on failure to join an indispensable party should have been without prejudice, allowing the city to amend its complaint.
[1] A trial court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true when ruling on a motion to dismiss.
[2] A party seeking a declaratory decree is entitled to contest the interpretation and application of a statute.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the trial court must accept as true all facts well pleaded.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing motions to dismiss and requires acceptance of the city's allegations as true.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Hallandale filed a complaint for injunction and declaratory relief against Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc., challenging the valid…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Dismiss Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The city of Hallandale filed a complaint for injunction and declaratory relief against Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc. The complaint centers around the validity and application of Chapter 81-132, Laws of Florida, which purports to exempt parimutuel permit holders from city and county building and zoning regulations under certain conditions. Gulfstream filed a motion to dismiss which was granted with prejudice. No reasons were stated in the order of dismissal as to why amendments would be disallowed. We reverse.
In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the trial court must accept as true all facts well pleaded. National Financing Corporation v. Weiche, 371 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). In seeking a declaratory decree, the City was entitled to contest the interpretation and application of the statute. The defendant’s motion to dismiss dealt primarily with the constitutionality of the statute, and it appears that this is what the court ruled on below. Even if the statute were constitutional on its face, the City should have been allowed to raise Gulfstream’s alleged noncompliance with the statute and the disputed interpretation and application of the statute. The statute seems to exempt defendant from all local regulation unless it can be shown that the proposed project is an immediate hazard to the health and safety of municipal residents. There is doubt as to whether the plans for the project must be submitted to the City for approval in compliance with the local codes at least as to safety standards. In short, the City was entitled to proceed with the declaratory decree action even if the decree was to be adverse to the City’s interests. Talcott v. Central Bank and Trust Company, 220 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).
The motion to dismiss also raises the City’s failure to join the Florida Pari-Mutu-el Commission as an indispensable party. If the trial court dismissed the complaint for this reason, then the dismissal was proper. However, Gulfstream concedes in its brief that failure to join an indispensable party is grounds for a dismissal without prejudice. We reverse and remand this matter to the trial court with directions to allow the City to amend its complaint to join the commission and to make such other amendments as it sees fit. We conclude that the complaint did state a cause of action at least to the extent stated herein.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DOWNEY, BERANEK and HERSEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sovran Bank, N.A. v. Parsons, 547 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…Applying the basic rules, that upon motion to dismiss the court’s gaze is limited to the four corners of the complaint and that all well pleaded allegations therein are taken as true, City of Hallandale v. Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc., 440 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); National Financing Corporation v. Weiche, 371 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Wenner v. Foster, 336 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), we are of the opinion that this complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action, and as such, s…
-
Paul v. Facchina, Jr., 735 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…Sovran Bank, N.A. v. Parsons, 547 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Royal Palm Beach Colony, Inc. v. Greenway Village South Ass’ns No. 1, 2, 3, and I, Inc., 443 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); City of Hallandale v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass’n Inc., 440 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Nat’l Financing Corp. v. Weiche, 371 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); and Wenner v. Foster, 336 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Consequently, the following statement of factual background is taken solely from plaintiffs complain…
-
Millsaps v. Orlando Wrecker, Inc., 634 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…e without prejudice. Spierer v. City of North Miami Beach, 560 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 576 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1990); Antonelli v. Smith, 556 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); City of Hallandale v. Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc., 440 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Fulmer. An exception to this rule is when the plaintiff refuses to amend his complaint to add a party necessary for a determination on the merits. For example, in Roberts v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 355 So. 2d 219…
Authorities Cited
- Talcott v. Cent. Bank & Tr. Co., 220 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Nat'l Fin. Corp. v. Weiche, 371 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)