AMERICAN SEAFOOD, INC.; COASTAL MARINE SERVICES, INC., AND CHRISPA, LTD., APPELLANTS,
v.
MICHAEL CLAWSON, CHIP CLAWSON, AND PATRICK D. CLAWSON, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF EARLE CLAWSON, DECEASED, 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.
American Seafood and related companies appealed the dismissal with prejudice of their four-count complaint against the Clawsons for conversion, civil theft, intentional interference with business relations, and conspiracy. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, finding the complaint failed to state causes of action and that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate after four prior failed amendment attempts over four years.
The court held that the complaint failed to state causes of action for conversion, civil theft, and intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship because it contained only conclusory allegations lacking essential facts. The conspiracy count also failed because no underlying tort was properly alleged. The trial court properly dismissed with prejudice given four prior unsuccessful amendment attempts over four years.
[1] A complaint fails to state a cause of action for conversion or civil theft when exhibits contradict the allegations of sale and the complaint lacks specific facts regardi…
[2] Conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a cause of action for conversion or civil theft.
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“The exhibits attached to the complaint establish that Patrick Clawson [who in an individual capacity is not a party to this action] sold the alleged converted chattel [a freighter] to Francisco Gonzalez Sanchez [a defendant who is not involved in this appeal]. These exhibits are inconsistent with the allegations of the complaint that (1) the defendants Michael and Chip Clawson, and (2) Earle Clawson (now deceased) sold the subject chattel, thereby rendering such allegations a nullity as to these defendants.”
Establishes why conversion and civil theft claims failed—exhibits contradicted the complaint's allegations about who sold the property.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmerican Seafood filed a complaint alleging conversion and civil theft of a freighter. Exhibits attached to the complaint showed that Patrick Clawson …
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 Intentional Interference With Advantageous Business Relationship cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs American Seafood, Inc., et al. from a final order of dismissal with prejudice of a four-count complaint sounding in conversion, civil theft, intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship, and conspiracy, which complaint was filed below against the defendants Michael Clawson, Chip Clawson, and Patrick Clawson, as personal representative of the Estate of Earle Clawson. We affirm.
First, we conclude that the complaint fails to state a cause of action for conversion or civil theft. The exhibits attached to the complaint establish that Patrick Clawson [who in an individual capacity is not a party to this action] sold the alleged converted chattel [a freighter] to Francisco Gonzalez Sanchez [a defendant who is not involved in this appeal]. These exhibits are inconsistent with the allegations of the complaint that (1) the defendants Michael and Chip Clawson, and (2) Earle Clawson (now deceased) sold the subject chattel, thereby rendering such allegations a nullity as to these defendants. Moreover, no facts are alleged in the complaint as to where or when this alleged sale took place. Finally, the balance of these two counts contain only general conclusory allegations which are insufficient to state a cause of action for conversion or civil theft. See Franz Tractor Co. v. J.I. Case Co., 566 So. 2d 524, 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Harry Pepper & Assoc. v. Lasseter, 247 So. 2d 736, 736-37 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 252 So. 2d 797 (Fla.1971).
Second, we conclude that the complaint fails to state a cause of action for intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship. The complaint does not specifically allege the nature of the alleged interference, what advantageous business relationship was inter-ferred with, or where or when the alleged interference occurred; accordingly, the complaint fails to allege the essential facts upon which the claim is based. See Florida-Georgia Chem. Co. v. National Laboratories, Inc., 153 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963); cf. Sloan v. Sax, 505 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Ocala Loan Co. v. Smith, 155 So. 2d 711, 715-16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963).
Third, in view of the above, the conspiracy count necessarily fails to state a cause of action as no tort is properly alleged which the defendants allegedly conspired to commit. See Liappas v. Augoustis, 47 So. 2d 582 (Fla.1950); Buckner v. Lower Fla. Keys Hosp. Dist., 403 So. 2d
1025, 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So. 2d 463 (Fla.1982).
Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs had been given four prior opportunities over a period of four years to amend their complaint, and, in each instance, failed to state a cause of action. These four prior ineffective amendment attempts to state a cause of action under the circumstances of this case constitute a sufficient basis for the trial court to conclude that the plaintiffs were incapable of stating a cause of action against these defendants, and, therefore, in dismissing the fourth amended complaint with prejudice. Alvarez v. DeAguirre, 395 So. 2d 213, 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); see American Seafood, Inc. v. First Union Nat’l Bank of Fla., 562 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. dismissed, 569 So. 2d 1278 (Fla.1990).
The final order of dismissal under review is, in all respects,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morton L. Ginsberg & MLG Props., Inc. v. Lennar Fla. Holdings, 645 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…las, 141 So. 2d 278 (Fla.1962). Exhibits attached to the complaint are controlling, where the allegations of the complaint are contradicted by the exhibits, the plain meaning of the exhibits will control. See and compare American Seafood v. Clawson, 598 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 3d DCA), review dismissed, 606 So. 2d 1164 (Fla.1992); Franz; Affordable Homes v. Devil’s Run, 408 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The loan documents, which are controlling in this case, reference to and incorporate each other to form a compl…
-
Abdo v. Khalil Abdo, 263 So. 3d 141 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
-
Kohn v. City OF Miami, 630 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…a.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1103, 101 S.Ct. 899, 66 L.Ed.2d 829 (1981); Pokorny v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 382 So. 2d 678 (Fla.1980); [*218] Kohn v. City of Miami Beach, 611 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); American Seafood, Inc. v. Clawson, 598 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 3d DCA), review dismissed, 606 So. 2d 1164 (Fla.1992); Franz Tractor Co. v. J.I. Case Co., 566 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Craven v. Metropolitan Dade County, 545 So. 2d 932, 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Harry Pepper & Assocs., Inc. v. Harley O. Al Lasseter, Sr., 247 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Ocala Loan Co. v. Smith, 155 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Nazario Alvarez v. DeAGUIRRE, 395 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Liappas v. Augoustis, 47 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 1950)
- Florida-Georgia Chem. Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labs., Inc., 153 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Sloan v. SAX, 505 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Staats v. Adams, 252 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1971)
- Harry Pepper & Assocs., Inc. v. Harley O. "Al" Lasseter, Sr., 252 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1971)
- Franz Tractor Co. v. J.I. Case Co., 566 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Milisav Kutlesic v. Guardianship OF Katia Kutlesic, 566 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)