ELIZABETH GILBERT A/K/A LIZ RICHARDS, APPELLANT,
v.
JACOR COMMUNICATIONS, INC., JACOR BROADCASTING OF TAMPA BAY, INC., RANDY MICHAELS, BOB LASSITER, DAVID MACEJKO, FRANK WOOD, AND HENRY RUIZ A/K/A TED WEBB, 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.
The court reversed the trial court's dismissal of invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent retention claims, holding that the trial court erred by not allowing the appellant an opportunity to amend her allegations.
A trial court errs when it dismisses claims without affording the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to overcome the deficiencies identified in a motion to dismiss.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by dismissing claims without affording the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to cure deficiencies identified in a motion…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElizabeth Gilbert filed suit against Jacor Communications and several individuals for invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distres…
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 Opportunity To Amend cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
The appellant seeks reversal of orders dismissing her claims against the appellees for invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent retention of employees. We agree with the appellant that the trial court erred in dismissing these claims without affording the appellant another opportunity to amend her allegations to overcome the objections raised in the appel-lees’ motions to dismiss.
The orders under review were rendered by the trial court on November 25, 1991, and November 17, 1992. The order rendered November 25, 1991, is, in pertinent part, an order granting the appellees’ motions to dismiss Counts III, IV and V of the appellant’s initial complaint; the nature of the order rendered November 17, 1992, is, in pertinent part, an order granting the appellees’ motions to dismiss Counts III and IV of the appellant’s amended complaint, with prejudice, dismissing all claims asserted against the appellees Lassiter, Maeejko, and Wood; that order is a final order as to such appel-lees. The action below remains pending against the remaining appellees as to those claims not dismissed.
We reverse with directions that the trial court permit the appellant to further amend her complaint.
Reversed.
RYDER, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.