JAMES KREAGER, APPELLANT,
v.
SUNSET COLONY JOINT VENTURE, ET AL., 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.
Kreager appealed a trial court order dismissing Count I of his second amended complaint against Sunset Colony Joint Venture. The appellate court reversed in part, finding that certain allegations in Count I stated a statutory cause of action under Florida Statutes section 723.022, while affirming the dismissal of other paragraphs.
The court reversed the dismissal of Count I in part, holding that paragraphs 4(A)1, 4(A)3(a)(b)(c)(d), and 4(A)4, when taken together with the jurisdiction statement, state a statutory cause of action under section 723.022. All other paragraphs of Count I properly state no cause of action and remain dismissed. The plaintiff may not amend or plead over on remand.
[1] A portion of a complaint may state a statutory cause of action even if other portions do not, when taken together with a jurisdiction statement and specific allegations.
[2] A plaintiff may not amend or plead over after a dismissal, even if a portion of the dismissed count is reinstated.
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“some of the allegations in Count I of the second amended complaint, taken together with the preceding "jurisdiction statement," do state a statutory cause of action under section 723.022, Florida Statutes (1985)”
Establishes the court's holding that certain allegations, when read together with the jurisdiction statement, constitute a valid statutory cause of action.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKreager, proceeding pro se, filed a second amended complaint against Sunset Colony Joint Venture with multiple counts. The trial court issued an order…
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 Short and Plain Statement cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
The trial court’s order appealed from, signed on May 8th, 1986, is affirmed in all respects with the exception of that portion thereof numbered arabic numeral one which dismissed all of Count I of the second amended complaint.
As to that specific sentence of the order numbered arabic one, we believe that some of the allegations in Count I of the second amended complaint, taken together with the preceding “jurisdiction statement,” do state a statutory cause of action under section 723.022, Florida Statutes (1985). Specifically, we believe that paragraphs 4(A)1, 4(A)3(a)(b)(c) and (d) and 4(A)4 of the second amended complaint are set forth with sufficient particularity to state a statutory cause of action. None of the other paragraphs state a cause of action. Moreover, upon remand, the plaintiff may neither amend nor plead over. Dober v. Worrell, 401 So. 2d 1322 (Fla.1981).
We would be less than candid if we failed to sympathize with the much respected trial judge. This pro se plaintiff has been deluging the court with excessive, repetitive, verbose and unnecessary pleadings which are in obvious violation of the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110 which mandates a “short and plain statement.” See Gordon v. Green, 602 F. 2d 743 (5th Cir.1979). The plaintiffs performance henceforth should be closely monitored and, depending on further events as they unfold, consideration may have to be given to an award of attorney’s fees against the plaintiff under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1986), if his cause subsequently proves to be totally devoid of merit. See Whitten v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., 410 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1982).
REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Herve Jean-Mary v. State, 678 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…74)); Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So. 2d 403, 408 (Fla.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 901, 109 S.Ct. 250,102 L.Ed.2d 239 (1988); Fulton v. State, 335 So. 2d 280, 283-84 (Fla.1976); Cortes v. State, 670 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Patterson v. State, 501 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Causey v. State, 484 So. 2d 1263, 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), quashed on other grounds, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla.1987). This rule applies even to the instant situation where the charges against the state’s witness have been recently dis…
-
Simmons v. State, 552 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…with intent to sell cocaine). Simmons had an absolute right to expose any prior convictions1 or pending charges against Means for the purposes of impeaching Means’ credibility and/or demonstrating his bias in favor of the state. Patterson v. State, 501 So. 2d 691, 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The convictions for sale of cocaine are affirmed, and the conviction for possession with intent to sell is reversed and the case remanded for new trial. ZEHMER, J., concurs. NIMMONS, J., concurs and dissents with written…
-
Dingle v. State, 699 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…error rule where as here, the subject witness was not the key witness to the state’s case and the witness’ testimony regarding the health of the victim on the day in question was merely cumulative to other testimony adduced. See Patterson v. State, 501 So. 2d 691, 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); but see Cortes, 670 [*835] So. 2d at 121 (it was clear error to prohibit cross-examination of a key prosecution witness regarding pending charges); Douglas v. State, 627 So. 2d 1190, 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (error not harml…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Whitten v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1982)
- Chirogianis v. Anderson, 401 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 1981)
- Gordon v. Green, 602 F.2d 743 (5th Cir. 1979)