ERIC TRELLES
v.
LE BASQUE HOLDINGS, LLC
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.
This case involves an appeal from a trial court's entry of summary judgment on claims of tortious interference and breach of fiduciary duty, and a subsequent damages award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no genuine issue of material fact for the tort claims and sufficient evidence to support the damages.
The appellate court held that the trial court properly entered summary judgment on the tort claims because no genuine issue of material fact remained. It also held that the damages award was supported by competent substantial evidence and that the tort claims were not precluded by the independent tort doctrine.
[1] Summary judgment is proper when no genuine issue of material fact remains in dispute, and a material fact is one essential to the resolution of the legal questions raised…
[2] A dispute as to matters not material to the disposition of the case will not preclude the entry of summary judgment.
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“Issues of nonmaterial facts are irrelevant to the summary judgment determination and a “material fact, for summary judgment purposes, is a fact that is essential to the resolution of the legal questions raised in the case””
Explains the standard for determining material facts in summary judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEric Trelles appealed the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Le Basque Holdings, LLC, on claims of tortious interference wit…
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 Independent Tort cases and more on FLexlaw
EMAS, C.J.
Eric Trelles appeals from the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Le Basque on claims of tortious interference with a business relationship and breach of fiduciary duty, and the subsequent entry of final judgment for damages in the amount of $251,519.74.
We affirm, holding (1) the trial court properly entered summary judgment on the two tort claims, as no genuine issue of material fact remained in dispute, see Cont’l Concrete, Inc. v. Lakes at La Paz III Ltd. P’ship, 758 So. 2d 1214, 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (observing: “Issues of nonmaterial facts are irrelevant to the summary judgment determination” and a “material fact, for summary judgment purposes, is a fact that is essential to the resolution of the legal questions raised in the case”); Armstrong v.
S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 366 So. 2d 88, 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (holding: “The existence of a dispute as to matters not material to disposition of the case will not preclude entry of a summary judgment”); (2) the damages award for future lost profits was supported by competent substantial evidence, see Alvarez v. All Star Boxing, Inc., 258 So. 3d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Katz Deli of Aventura, Inc. v. Waterways Plaza, LLC, 183 So. 3d 374, 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); W. Boca Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Marzigliano, 965 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); and (3) the two tort claims were not precluded by the independent tort doctrine, see Rockledge Mall Assocs., Ltd. v. Custom Fences of Brevard, Inc., 779 So. 2d 558, 559 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (holding: “The contract claim and the tortious interference claim were separate and distinct causes of action rather than alternative theories of recovery for the same wrong”); Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Beech St. Corp., 899 So. 2d 1222, 1229-30 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (explaining that plaintiff’s theory of the case on its tortious interference claim alleged an “ongoing business relationship” existed while the contract at issue was in force) (citation omitted)).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cora v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg. (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics v. Beech St. Corp. & Unisys Corp., 899 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Cont'l Concrete, Inc. v. Lakes AT LA PAZ III Ltd. P'ship, 758 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Alvarez v. ALL Star Boxing, Inc., 258 So. 3d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Rockledge Mall Assocs., Ltd. v. Custom Fences OF Brevard, Inc., 779 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Jodie Armstrong and Catherine Armstrong v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 366 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Katz Deli OF Aventura, Inc. v. Waterways Plaza, LLC, 183 So. 3d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Teva Devon Bradley v. State, 965 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Am. Mobile Health Servs. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. INS. Co., 183 So. 3d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)