DR. MASOOD JALLALI, APPELLANT,
v.
BARRY UNIVERSITY, INC., 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.
Florida appellate court reversed dismissal of employment complaint because defendant improperly relied on its own affirmative defense rather than facial defects in plaintiff's complaint to support motion to dismiss.
A defendant cannot use affirmative defenses asserted in its own answer as grounds for a motion to dismiss; only defects appearing on the face of the plaintiff's complaint may support such a motion.
[1] Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(d), affirmative defenses appearing on the face of the opponent's prior pleading may support a motion to dismiss, but a defenda…
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 intelligence“The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to ascertain whether a plaintiff has alleged a good cause of action and the court must confine itself strictly to the four corners of the complaint. It is inappropriate to consider defendants' affirmative defenses, or the sufficiency of the evidence which the plaintiff is likely to produce.”
Court explaining the proper scope and purpose of a motion to dismiss under Florida procedure.
Dr. Masood Jallali filed a complaint against Barry University. Barry University asserted an affirmative defense in its answer and then moved to dismis…
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 Four Corners Of The Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
FLETCHER, Judge.
We reverse the final order of the trial court dismissing Dr. Masood Jallali’s complaint because the dismissal was predicated upon an affirmative defense that does not appear on the face of the complaint. E.g., Lewis v. Barnett Bank of So. Fla., N.A., 604 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Contrary to Barry University’s contention, the affirmative defense alleged in its answer to Jallali’s complaint cannot be the basis for its subsequent motion to dismiss. This is a misconstruction of the language of Rule 1.110(d), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that “[ajffirmative defenses appearing on the face of a prior pleading may be asserted as grounds for a motion [to dismiss].” The “prior pleading” referenced is that of the movant’s opponent, not that of the movant. As we observed in N.E. at West Palm Beach, Inc. v. Horowitz, 471 So. 2d 570, 570-71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985):
“The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to ascertain whether a plaintiff has alleged a good cause of action and the court must confine itself strictly to the four corners of the complaint. It is inappropriate to consider defendants’ affirmative defenses, or the sufficiency of the evidence which the plaintiff is likely to produce.”
The final order of dismissal is reversed and the cause is remanded. Under the circumstances we express no opinion on the sufficiency of the affirmative defense.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lewis v. Barnett Bank OF S. Fla., N.A., 604 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- N.E. AT W. Palm Beach, Inc. v. Horowitz, 471 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)