EDWARD MITCHELL, MARGARET MITCHELL AND MARY MITCHELL, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
The court affirmed dismissal of tort claims against the Dade County School Board, holding that the notice of claim was deficient as to one plaintiff, the remaining claims failed to state viable causes of action, and any viable claims were subject to mandatory arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement.
Claims against the School Board were properly dismissed because the notice of claim did not include claims for the daughter, the remaining claims failed to state actionable torts, and any cognizable claims were subject to mandatory arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement.
[1] A notice of claim under section 768.28, Florida Statutes, that does not include claims on behalf of a particular plaintiff results in proper dismissal of claims as to tha…
[2] A claim for tortious interference with contract or business relationship cannot be maintained against a party who is itself the other party to the alleged contract or bus…
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 intelligenceEdward, Margaret, and Mary Mitchell filed claims against the Dade County School Board. The Mitchells provided notice under section 768.28, Florida Sta…
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 Notice Of Claim Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Edward, Margaret and Mary Mitchell appeal the dismissal with prejudice of their claims against the Dade County School Board. We affirm.
Assuming the Mitchells’ notification under section 768.28, Florida Statutes (1989), could be read broadly enough to encompass the tort claims at issue here, the notice did not include claims on behalf of the daughter, Mary Mitchell, and all counts were properly dismissed as to her. As to Margaret Mitchell, it is clear that the complaint does not state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, see Eastern Air Lines v. King, 557 So. 2d 574 (Fla.1990), nor would a claim for tortious interference with contract or business relationship lie where, as here, the school board is the other party to the alleged contract or business relationship. See Genet Co. v. Annheuser-Busch, Inc., 498 So. 2d 683, 684-85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). To the extent that any claims were, or could have been, stated against the Dade County School Board, they would have been subject to the grievance and mandatory arbitration procedures set forth in the collective bargaining agreement annexed to the second amended complaint, and would not have been subject to the trial de novo sought by appellants in the circuit court. We are unable to discern any independent claims on behalf of Edward Mitchell. Assuming for present purposes that a motion for leave to amend was properly made, we find no abuse of discretion in the dismissal of the second amended complaint without further leave to amend.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Making Ends Meet, Inc. v. Laurence F. Cusick and Diana Cusick, 719 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…or contractual relationship does not he against one “who is himself a party to the business relationship allegedly interfered with.” Genet Co. v. Annheuser-Busch, Inc., 498 So. 2d 683, 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Mitchell v. School Board of Dade County, 566 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). However, [t]he right of a lessor to disapprove of prospective assignees of a lease does not render the lessor immune from an action for tortious interference with the business [*928] of the lessee where it can be shown that the…
-
Hall v. Burger King Corp., 912 F. Supp. 1509 (S.D. Fla. 1995)…alter, supra, 386 So.2d at 1224 (collecting cases); accord Cedar Hills Properties Corp. v. Eastern Fed. Corp., 575 So.2d 673, 676-77 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 589 So.2d 290 (Fla.1991); Mitchell v. School Bd. of Dade County, 566 So.2d 2, 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). *1538 89. In the instant action, Jorge Triana’s claim is based solely upon BKC’s purported interference with his attempts to assign the franchise agreement for Burger King® Restaurant No. 147. However, since BKC was a…
-
Montgomery & Larmoyeux v. Philip Morris, Inc., 992 F. Supp. 1372 (S.D. Fla. 1998)…., 450 So.2d 536, 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Buckner v. Lower Florida Keys Hosp. Distr., 403 So.2d 1025, 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Ethyl Corp. v. Balter, 386 So.2d 1220, 1224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Mitchell v. Dade County School Board, 566 So.2d 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). But Montgomery argues, persuasively, that the cases cited by defendants are factually distinguishable from this case. Each of those cases involved a plaintiff who was suing the party on the opposite side of the contract or bu…
Authorities Cited
- The Genet Co. v. Annheuser-Busch, Inc., 498 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- E. Airlines, Inc. v. King, 557 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1990)