JOSE SORLI, APPELLANT,
v.
I.M. SKAUGEN MANAGEMENT CO., A/S ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINES, A/S POSEIDON MARITIME SERVICES, INC., POSEIDON SERVICES, LTD., FAIRWEATHER INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES, INC., APPELLEES
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.
A Florida appellate court reversed the dismissal of a maritime personal injury complaint, holding that the affirmative defense of laches (unreasonable delay) cannot support dismissal on the face of the pleadings when the complaint alleges the defendant suffered no prejudice from the delay.
The affirmative defense of laches does not support dismissal on the face of the complaint when an essential element of laches—prejudice to the defendant—is expressly negated by allegations in the complaint itself. Dismissal on this ground is inappropriate at the pleading stage.
[1] An affirmative defense of laches cannot be sustained when the complaint expressly negates the element of prejudice to the defendant.
[2] A complaint should not be dismissed on the grounds of laches when the essential element of prejudice is absent from the face of the pleading.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the affirmative defense of laches does not appear on the face of the complaint as urged by the defendants below”
Establishes the core holding that laches cannot support dismissal on the pleadings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJose Sorli filed an amended complaint against several maritime companies (I.M. Skaugen Management Co., Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, Poseidon entities…
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.
PER CURIAM.
The order under review dismissing the amended complaint herein is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings upon a holding that the affirmative defense of laches does not appear on the face of the complaint as urged by the defendants below. Although arguably an inexcusable delay in bringing the subject action is alleged in the amended complaint, see Byrd v. M/V Yozgat, 420 F. 2d 954, 955 (5th Cir.1969); Gildens v. Isbrandtsen Co., 355 F. 2d 125, 128 (4th Cir.1966); Morales v. More-McCormack Lines, Inc., 208 F. 2d 218, 221 (5th Cir. 1953); but cf. Larios v. Victory Carriers, Inc., 316 F. 2d 63, 67 (2d Cir. 1963) (absence from country presented relatively strong excuse for delay), the element of prejudice to the defendants (an essential element of laches), see Gardner v. Panama Railroad, 342 U.S. 29, 31, 72 S.Ct. 12, 14, 96 L.Ed. 31, 36 (1951); Akers v. State Marine Lines, Inc., 344 F. 2d 217, 220-21 (5th Cir.1965); VanMeter v. Kelsey, 91 So. 2d 327, 331 (Fla.1956); Peacock v. Firman, 177 So. 2d 560, 562 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 183 So. 2d 215 (Fla.1965), is expressly negated by allegations in the amended complaint that the defendant suffered no prejudice as a result of the aforesaid delay (Amended Complaint, para. 32).
This being so, it was inappropriate at this point of the proceedings to dismiss the amended complaint as being barred by the affirmative defense of laches. See Sanchez v. Mercy Hospital, 386 So. 2d 42, 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Paulos v. Vordermeier, 327 So. 2d 245, 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Stern v.
First National Bank of South Miami, 275 So. 2d 58, 60-61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(d).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Susan v. Hoffman, 541 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ion or condition which renders it inequitable to enforce the legal right. Devine v. Department of Prof. Regulation, 451 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Smith v. State, 506 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); see also Sorli v. I.M. Skaugen Management Co., 452 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). In determining whether laches is established to bar recovery in child-support cases, courts also consider the length and reasonableness of the delay in seeking support payments. See generally Annotation, Laches or Acquiescence as…
Authorities Cited (13 total)
- Gardner v. Panama R.R. Co., 342 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1951)
- VAN Meter v. Edward L. Kelsey and his wife, 91 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 1956)
- Demetrios Larios v. Victory Carriers, Inc., 316 F.2d 63 (2d Cir. 1963)
- Morales v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 208 F.2d 218 (5th Cir. 1953)
- Akers v. State Marine Lines, Inc., 344 F.2d 217 (5th Cir. 1965)
- Gustav A. Stern v. First Nat'l Bank OF S. Miami, 275 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Poulos v. Vordermeier, 327 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Turnbull v. State, 386 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Peacock v. Firman, 177 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Perry's Fashions, Inc. v. Guar. Sec. Ins. Co., 183 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1965)