WELLS FARGO ARMORED SERVICES CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
SUNSHINE SECURITY AND DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC., 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.
Wells Fargo appealed a trial court order dismissing its amended complaint on remand. The Third District affirmed the dismissal under the law of the case doctrine, holding that where a judgment is reversed on appeal because the complaint fails to state a cause of action, the plaintiff cannot refile an amended complaint containing the same claims or new theories of recovery.
The law of the case doctrine precludes a plaintiff whose judgment was reversed because the complaint failed to state a cause of action from filing an amended complaint on remand containing the same causes of action or adding new different theories of recovery. Upon remand, the defendant is entitled to entry of a final judgment in his favor.
[1] The doctrine of law of the case precludes a plaintiff from reopening a case and filing an amended complaint upon remand that contains the same causes of action previously…
[2] When an appellate court reverses a judgment for a plaintiff due to a failure to state a cause of action, the defendant is entitled to a final judgment in their favor upon…
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“Where, as here, a final judgment for the plaintiff is reversed on appeal because the complaint failed to state a cause of action, the plaintiff is precluded by the doctrine of law of the case from reopening the case and filing an amended complaint upon remand containing the same causes of action ruled upon in the prior appeal and adding new, different theories of recovery not previously asserted.”
Establishes the core holding that law of the case doctrine bars amended complaints with same or new theories after reversal for failure to state a 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 intelligenceWells Fargo filed a complaint against Sunshine Security that was the subject of a default judgment in Wells Fargo's favor. That judgment was reversed …
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 Amended Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final order dismissing the amended complaint under review is affirmed on the ground that the subject complaint was barred by the doctrine of law of the case. We have previously held, in reversing a final default judgment entered in this cause, that the complaint upon which the final default judgment was entered wholly failed to state a cause of action. Sunshine Security & Detective Agency v. Wells Fargo Armored Servs. Corp., 496 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). This being so, the trial court was eminently correct in dismissing the amended complaint, filed upon remand, which realleged the same causes of action as the original complaint and added three additional alleged causes of action.
Where, as here, a final judgment for the plaintiff is reversed on appeal because the complaint failed to state a cause of action, the plaintiff is precluded by the doctrine of law of the case from reopening the case and filing an amended complaint upon remand containing the same causes of action ruled upon in the prior appeal and adding new, different theories of recovery not previously asserted. Don Suntan Corp. v. Tanning Research Laboratories, 505 So. 2d 35, 36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); see Dober v. Worrell, 401 So. 2d 1322, 1324 (Fla.1981); Palm Beach Estates v. Croker, 106 Fla. 617, 143 So. 792 (1932); Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 206 So. 2d 688, 690 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); cf. Brickell Place Condominium Ass’n v. American Design & Dev. Corp., 470 So. 2d 74, 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Mackin v. Applestein, 404 So. 2d 789, 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).1 In such a scenario, the defendant, upon remand, is entitled to the entry of a final judgment in his favor. Contrary to appellant’s argument, this result is required whether the final judgment for the plaintiff is entered upon a jury verdict or, as here, upon a default. Cf. Arky, Freed, Stearns, Watson, Greer, Weaver & Harris, P.A. v. Bowmar Instrument Corp., 537 So. 2d 561 (Fla.1988); Freshwater v. Vetter, 511 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Designers Tile Int’l Corp. v. Capitol C Corp., 499 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 508 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1987); Dean Co. v. U.S. Home Corp., 485 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Dickerson, Inc. v. Buckley, 261 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 268 So. 2d 534 (Fla.1972).
We recognize that the trial court dismissed the amended complaint on statute of limitations grounds. Nonetheless, it is well settled that a trial court may be right for any reason appearing in the record, and the law of the case reason for affirmance is obvious from this record. See In re Yohn’s Estate, 238 So. 2d 290, 295 (Fla.1970); Green v. Bruns, 102 So. 2d 610, 612-13 (Fla.1958); Carpenter v. Metropolitan Dade County, 472 So. 2d 795, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Florida Ins. Exchange v. State, 178 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965).
AFFIRMED.
. But cf. Coudry v. City of Titusville, 438 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (appellate court affirming summary judgment for defendant may remand with directions to the trial court to allow post-appeal amendment to state cause of action evident from facts though not originally pled); Florida Air Conditioners, Inc. v. Colonial Supply Co., 390 So. 2d 174, 176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (trial court, following remand after reversal of jury verdict for appellee, should permit losing appellee to amend to state a cause of action originally pled but voluntarily dismissed in reliance on trial court’s denial of motion to dismiss which was reversed on appeal).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wells Fargo Armored Servs. Corp. v. Sunshine Sec. & Detective Agency, Inc., 575 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1991)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Wells Fargo Armored Services Corp. v. Sunshine Security & Detective Agency, 538 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), based on express and direct conflict with Brumby v. City of Clearwater, 108 Fla. 633, 149 So. 203 (1933), and Slavin v. McCann Plumbing Co., 73 So. 2d 902 (Fla.1954). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. On Decem…
-
DOT (SR), Inc. v. Telesur, 136 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…he Third District considered the case again after Wells Fargo filed an amended complaint on remand and the trial court dismissed the amended complaint on statute of limitations grounds. Wells Fargo Armored Servs. v. Sunshine Sec. & Detective Agency, 538 So. 2d 92, 93-94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The Third District affirmed on the basis that the law-of-the-case doctrine “precluded ... reopening the case and filing an amended complaint on remand.” Id. at 93. The supreme court disagreed. Wells Fargo Armored Services…
-
Wells Fargo Armored Servs. Corp. v. Sunshine Sec. & Detective Agency, Inc., 576 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…WHEREAS, the opinion rendered by this Court on February 7, 1989 (538 So. 2d 92), affirmed the order of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and WHEREAS, on review of this Court’s opinion, by Petition for Review, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion filed January 17, 1991, and its mand…
Authorities Cited (22 total)
- Chirogianis v. Anderson, 401 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 1981)
- Palm Beach Ests. v. Bula E. Croker, 106 Fla. 617 (Fla. 1932)
- In re Est. of Carl Sylvester Yohn, 238 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1970)
- Arky v. Bowmar Instrument Corp., 537 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1988)
- Coudry v. City OF Titusville, 438 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Freshwater v. Vetter, 511 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Fla. AIR Conditioners, Inc. v. Colonial Supply Co., 390 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- The Dean Co. v. U.S. Home Corp., Inc., 485 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Sunshine Sec. & Detective Agency v. Wells Fargo Armored Servs. Corp., 496 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- MacKin v. Applestein, 404 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)