MARTIN J. BRADLEY, III,

v.

JOSE TRESPALACIOS, ET AL.,

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Martin J. Bradley III, the plaintiff below, appeals (i) a January 13, 2022 order dismissing, with prejudice, Bradley’s operative Second Amended Complaint¹ for, inter alia, Bradley’s failure to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) against the co-defendant below, appellee Jose Trespalacios,² and (ii) a March 18, 2022 order denying Bradley’s motion for rehearing that sought leave to file a proposed Third Amended Complaint against Trespalacios for IIED. On our de novo review of the January 13, 2022 order, we affirm the trial court’s legal determination that the Second Amended Complaint failed to state a claim for IIED. See K.R. Exch. Servs., Inc. v. Fuerst, Humphrey, Ittleman, PL, 48 So. 3d 889,

892 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“We review de novo a trial court’s order dismissing a complaint with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action.”); Deauville Hotel Mgmt., LLC v. Ward, 219 So. 3d 949, 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“What constitutes outrageous conduct is a question that must be decided as a matter of law.”). We conclude further that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bradley’s motion for rehearing that sought leave to file a proposed Third Amended Complaint. See Kohn v. City of Miami Beach, 611 So. 2d 538, 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“While there is no magical number of amendments which are allowed, we have previously observed that with amendments beyond the third attempt, dismissal with prejudice is generally not an abuse of discretion.”); Tuten v. Fariborzian, 84 So. 3d 1063, 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“Although leave of the court shall be freely given when justice requires, the court need not allow an amendment that would be futile.”). Affirmed.