MARY ANN DEWITT, APPELLANT,
v.
RANDALL P. ROSSI, 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.
Mary Ann DeWitt appealed the dismissal of her breach of contract and tortious interference claims after the trial court granted a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with Florida's pleading rules. The court affirmed, holding that trial courts have discretion to dismiss complaints that violate the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly when pleadings are disjointed and fail to use consecutively numbered paragraphs with single sets of circumstances.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint for non-compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure. A dismissal under Rule 1.420(b) for failure to comply with pleading rules operates as an adjudication on the merits and may be upheld when the plaintiff is given an opportunity to amend but fails to do so within the time allowed.
[1] A trial court may dismiss an action or claim for failure to comply with the rules of pleading.
[2] A complaint must contain a short and plain statement of ultimate facts showing entitlement to relief.
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“Under Rule 1.110(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint is required to contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, and must also contain a short and plain statement of the ultimate facts showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Under Rule 1.110(f), all averments of claim must be made in consecutively numbered paragraphs.”
Establishes the mandatory pleading requirements that DeWitt's complaint violated
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeWitt filed an amended complaint against the Rossis for breach of contract and the Boehmes for tortious interference with a contract. The amended com…
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 Adjudication On The Merits cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The appellant, Mary Ann Dewitt, plaintiff below, filed an amended complaint against the Rossis and the Boehmes, appel-lees here, for breach of contract and tortious interference with a contract, respectively. In response, the Boehmes moved to dismiss on grounds the amended complaint, which was largely in narrative form, was “disjointed” and failed to clearly and concisely set forth the averments of claim in consecutively numbered paragraphs as required by the rules of pleading.
The trial court granted the motion on the basis that “several paragraphs in the amended complaint contained multiple or narrative allegations, involving multiple sets of circumstances, making a cumbersome pleading difficult to respond to.” Dewitt was granted twenty days within which to file a second amended complaint, but elected not to do so, choosing instead to take a final dismissal with prejudice and to appeal.
On appeal, Dewitt poses the issue as being simply whether she stated a cause of action, however cumbersome, for breach of contract (against the Rossis) and contractual interference (against the Boehmes). The appellees, on the other hand, see the issue as being the right of the trial court to dismiss a complaint violative of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
We agree with the appellees. Under Rule 1.110(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint is required to contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, and must also contain a short and plain statement of the ultimate facts showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Under Rule 1.110(f), all averments of claim must be made in consecutively numbered paragraphs. The contents of each must be limited as far as practicable to a statement of a single set of circumstances.
Rule 1.420(b) (involuntary dismissal) states that any party may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against him for failure of an adverse party to comply with the Rules or any order of the court. A dismissal under this rule operates as an adjudication on the merits. In the instant case, we see no abuse of discretion by the trial court in requiring compliance with the rules of pleading and, after allowing the opportunity for amendment, granting dismissal. Rule 1.420(b) has been applied to uphold the trial court’s discretion in dis missing for failure to amend a pleading within the time limits set by the court. Edward L. Nezelek, Inc. v. Sunbeam Television Corporation, 413 So. 2d 51, 53 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 424 So. 2d 763 (Fla.1982); New River Yachting Center, Inc. v. Bacchiocchi, 407 So. 2d 607, 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), review denied, 415 So. 2d 1360 (Fla.1982); Clifford Ragsdale, Inc. v. Morganti, Inc., 356 So. 2d 1321, 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 362 So. 2d 1051 (Fla.1978); Lutheran Senior Citizens Foundation, Inc. v. Schumacher, 355 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 833 (Fla.1978); Neida’s Boutique, Inc. v. Gabor and Company, Inc., 348 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 366 So. 2d 883 (Fla.1978); Weiner v. Lozman and Weinberg, P.A., 340 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Miami Auto Auction, Inc. v. Friendly Enterprises, Inc., 257 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Lasley v. Cushing, 244 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); E & E Electric Contractors, Inc. v. Singer, 236 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. dismissed, 239 So. 2d 827 (Fla.1970); National Shawmut Bank of Boston v. Woodard, 220 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 225 So. 2d 917 (Fla.1969); Reynolds v. Deep South Sports, Inc., 211 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968).
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McKINNEY-Green, Inc. v. Davis, 606 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…most liberal construction of the rules of procedure, ample opportunity was proffered to the appellant to state a cause of action. When leave to amend a dismissed complaint has been granted, failure to do so will result in dismissal. Dewitt v. Rossi, 559 So. 2d 659 (5th DCA), rev. den., 574 So. 2d 140 (Fla.1990); Reynolds v. Deep South Sports, Inc., 211 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). We hold that the the trial court erred, as a matter of law, in denying the motion to dismiss as to Count One. COUNT TWO (TORTIOU…
-
Cash v. Airport Mini-Storage, 782 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…claims. See Clemente v. Home, 707 So. 2d 865, 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); see also Davis v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 59 F. 3d 1186, 1186 (11th Cir.1995). The Fifth district affirmed a dismissal based on a similar disjointed pleadings in Dewitt v. Rossi, 559 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). See Barrett v. City of Margate, 743 So. 2d 1160, 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(observing that notwithstanding the fundamental principle of allowing pro se litigants procedural latitude, a practice effected to ensure access to the cou…
-
KEE v. Bailey, 634 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…PER CURIAM. Thomas Kee appeals a final order dismissing his second amended complaint with prejudice. We affirm. Rogers v. State, 630 So. 2d 513 (Fla.1993); DeWitt v. Rossi 559 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The Florida Supreme Court has clearly stated that a party abandons previously filed post-judgment motions when he files a notice of appeal of that judgment. In re Forfeiture of $101,591 in U.S. Currency, 589 So. 2d 283, 285 (F…
Authorities Cited (16 total)
- Edward L. Nezelek, Inc. v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 413 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- NEW River Yachting Ctr., Inc. v. Bacchiocchi, 407 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Clifford Ragsdale, Inc. v. Morganti, Inc., 356 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- E & E Elec. Contractors, Inc. v. Myron Singer and Eleanor Singer, 236 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Reynolds v. Deep S. Sports, Inc., 211 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Miami Auto Auction, Inc. v. Friendly Enters., Inc., 257 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Lasley v. Gibb Cushing, 244 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Fasce, 348 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Neida's Boutique, Inc. v. Gabor & Co., 348 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- The Nat'l Shawmut Bank OF Boston v. Woodard, 220 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)