JUSTO DIAZ, APPELLANT,
v.
METRO-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, 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.
Justo Diaz appealed the dismissal of his false arrest and false imprisonment complaint against Metro-Dade Police Department. The trial court dismissed the complaint as barred by Florida's four-year statute of limitations, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the cause of action accrued at the time of arrest, not when the plaintiff discovered the underlying computer error.
The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a cause of action for false arrest and false imprisonment accrues at the time of the plaintiff's arrest, not at the time the plaintiff discovers the error that caused the arrest. Therefore, the complaint was facially barred by the four-year statute of limitations.
[1] An order dismissing a complaint with prejudice, which directs that the complaint "be and the same is hereby dismissed with prejudice," is a final appealable order.
[2] A cause of action for false arrest and false imprisonment accrues at the time of the plaintiff's arrest, not upon discovery of an underlying error.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 false arrest/false imprisonment claim accrued at the time of the plaintiff's arrest, rather than several years later when the plaintiff allegedly discovered the subject computer error”
Establishes the key holding that accrual date is determined by the arrest, not by discovery of the underlying error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJusto Diaz was arrested by the Hialeah Gardens Police Department based on a mistaken entry in a police computer allegedly made by the Metro-Dade Polic…
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 Final Appealable Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff Justo Diaz from a trial court order dismissing with prejudice a complaint which pleads a cause of action for false arrest and false imprisonment. Contrary to the defendant Metro-Dade Police Department’s position, we have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal as having been taken from a final order of the circuit court. Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const. The cases relied on by the defendant to contest our jurisdiction are inapplicable to the instant case as in those cases the order appealed from merely granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss “with prejudice,” Lawler v. Harris, 418 So. 2d 1239, 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), receded from on other grounds, Arcangeli v. Albertson’s, Inc., 550 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Gries Inv. Co. v. Chelton, 388 So. 2d 1281, 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Barnes v. Ross, 386 So. 2d 812, 813 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); by way of contrast, the order appealed from in the instant case directs that the subject complaint “be and the same is hereby dismissed with prejudice.” Under prevailing Florida case law, this is clearly a final appealable order which we have jurisdiction to review. Board of County Comm’rs v. Grice, 438 So. 2d 392, 393-94 (Fla.1983); Salasky v. Humana Hosp. Kissimmee Auxiliary, Inc., 478 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
The basis for the dismissal order below was that the subject complaint was, on its face, barred by the applicable four-year statute of limitations. § 95.11(3), Fla. Stat. (1983). Without dispute, more than four years elapsed from the date the plaintiff was allegedly arrested by the Hialeah Gardens Police Department based on an alleged mistaken entry in a police computer made by the defendant Metro-Dade Police Department. We agree that the false arrest/false imprisonment claim accrued at the time of the plaintiff’s arrest, rather than several years later when the plaintiff allegedly discovered the subject computer error, and, accordingly, the claim as contained in the subject complaint and the proposed amended complaint on rehearing was facially barred by the statute of limitations. Leatherwood v. City of Key West, 347 So. 2d 441, 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (holding that a cause of action for false arrest and imprisonment accrues on the day of plaintiff's arrest), cert. denied, 358 So. 2d 131 (Fla.1978); Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So. 2d 25, 33, 40 (Fla.1976); City of Miami v. Brooks, 70 So. 2d 306, 308-09 (Fla.1954).
The final order of dismissal under review is, therefore, in all respects,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stebnicki v. Wolfson, 584 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…iss the complaint as to the defendants named therein. An order dismissing a complaint is a final appealable order. See Board of County Commissioners of Madison County v. Grice, 438 So. 2d 392 (Fla. [*179] 1983); Diaz v. Metro-Dade Police Department, 557 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Salasky v. Humana Hospital Kissimmee Auxiliary, Inc., 478 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Gries Investment Company v. Chelton, 388 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). This remains true even though the dismissal does not contain langu…
-
Pakonis v. Clark, 183 So. 3d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…day.” (emphasis added). As experienced appellate counsel well know, such language constitutes an unequivocal declaration of finality upon which timely action must be taken in order to secure appellate consideration. Diaz v. Metro-Dade Police Dep’t, 557 So. 2d 608, 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Gries Inv. Co. v. Chelton, 388 So. 2d 1281, 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); see also Raymond v. Caldwell Banker Residential Real Estate, Inc., 848 So. 2d 1160, 1161 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Collier, 405 So. 2d 311,…
-
Miri Mayost Visoly and Aviad Visoly v. Sec. Pac. Credit Corp., 768 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…ts the trial court’s assessment of attorney’s fees against the Visolys in the proceedings below. A court “shall” award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party where there is an absence of justiciable issue of either law or fact. See Mixson v. Hyatt, 557 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 574 So. 2d 142 (Fla.1990); [*490] Muckerman v. Burris, 553 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), review denied 567 So. 2d 435 (Fla.1990); Wood v. Price, 546 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 553 So. 2d 1166 (Fla.1989);…
Authorities Cited
- Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1976)
- City of Miami v. Brooks, 70 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1954)
- Gries Inv. Co. v. Chelton, 388 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Madison Cnty. v. Grice, 438 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1983)
- Barnes v. Dr. Patricia Ross & the Ladies Ctr. of S. Fla., Inc., 386 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Kramer v. State, 550 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Arcangeli v. Albertson's, Inc., 550 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Robert E. Lawler, M.D. v. Harris, 418 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Leatherwood v. The City OF KEY W., 347 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Salasky v. Humana Hosp. Kissimmee Auxiliary, Inc., 478 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)