PATRICIA ANN MCBEE, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
SANDALS RESORTS INTERNATIONAL LTD., ET AL., 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.
Patricia McBee sued a Florida travel company (Unique Vacations) and a Jamaican resort (Sandals Resorts International) for injuries sustained during a resort vacation package. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action against Unique and on forum non conveniens grounds against Sandals. The appellate court reversed, holding that the complaint adequately alleged negligence and that dismissal on forum non conveniens was improper when a Florida corporate defendant was present.
The trial court erred in dismissing the complaint against Unique because it relied on facts outside the four corners of the complaint rather than confining its review to well-pleaded allegations, and McBee adequately alleged the elements of negligence (duty, breach, and damages). Additionally, dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds was improper because Unique, a Florida corporation domiciled in Dade County, was a party to the action, and plaintiffs are entitled to select a forum where jurisdiction and venue are proper over at least one defendant.
[1] A motion to dismiss a complaint is confined to the well-pled facts alleged within the four corners of the complaint and does not permit consideration of extrinsic evidenc…
[2] A trial court errs by dismissing a complaint based on facts outside the complaint itself when the complaint otherwise states a viable cause of action.
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“a motion to dismiss a complaint is not a motion for summary judgment in which the court may rely on facts adduced in depositions, affidavits, or other proofs. On a motion to dismiss, the trial court is necessarily confined to the well-pled facts alleged in the four corners of the complaint”
Establishes the proper standard for reviewing a motion to dismiss—courts must limit review to allegations in the complaint itself
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatricia McBee, a Georgia resident, purchased a vacation package from Unique Vacations, Inc., a Florida corporation, to stay at Sandals Ocho Rios reso…
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 Motion To Dismiss Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Patricia Ann McBee, a Georgia resident, purchased a vacation package through Unique Vacations, Inc. (“Unique”), a Florida corporation. The package was to include all travel, transfers, accommodations, and meals for a vacation at the Jamaican resort known as Sandals Ocho Rios, Ltd. which is owned by Sandals Resorts International, Ltd. (collectively, “Sandals”).
McBee was injured while being transported from Sandals’ resort to the airport in Jamaica for her return trip to the United States. She and her husband sued Unique d/b/a Sandals Resorts, setting forth causes of action based on negligence and breach of contract. Unique moved to dismiss, asserting that it was not doing business as Sandals and asserting that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because Unique neither owned or controlled Sandals. McBee then amended her complaint to include Sandals. Unique appeared specially and filed answers and defenses; Sandals did not respond, and defaults were entered against Sandals. These defaults were later set aside, and Sandals also appeared specially to file answers and defenses.
The trial court then dismissed McBee’s amended complaint as to Unique for failure to state a cause of action, and as to Sandals on the grounds of forum non conveniens.
We reverse.
The law is well settled that a motion to dismiss a complaint is not a motion for summary judgment in which the court may rely on facts adduced in depositions, affidavits, or other proofs. On a motion to dismiss, the trial court is necessarily confined to the well-pled facts alleged in the four corners of the complaint and is not authorized to consider any other acts, including, as here, the sufficiency of the evidence which the plaintiff will likely produce at trial. See Lewis v. Barnett Bank, 604 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
McBee alleged a duty, a breach of that duty, and resulting damage. Because the trial court based its dismissal on facts outside the four corners of the complaint, and the complainants otherwise pled a viable cause of action, the order under review as to Unique is reversed.
Following this analysis, with Unique a party to the action, the dismissal based on forum non conveniens was improper. One of the parties, Unique, is a Florida corporation domiciled in Dade County. The plaintiffs are entitled to select the forum where jurisdiction over the defendants is found and venue is proper. See Armadora Naval Dominicana, S.A v. Garcia, 478 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
Accordingly, the order under review is reversed and the case remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grabois v. Ultracare Ultrasound, Inc., 782 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…tice action. We reverse where the well-pled allegations stated a cause of action and the trial court impermissibly considered matters outside of the four corners of the pleading in granting this motion. See McBee v. Sandals Resorts Internat’l, Ltd., 659 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Attias v. Faroy Realty Co., 609 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Lewis v. Barnett Bank of South Fla., 604 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded.…
Authorities Cited
- Lewis v. Barnett Bank OF S. Fla., N.A., 604 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Armadora Naval Dominicana, S.A. v. Garcia, 478 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)