BRENDA BARBADO, APPELLANT,
v.
GREEN & MURPHY, P.A., A FLORIDA PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
Brenda Barbado appealed the dismissal of her professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract complaint. The court reversed the dismissal, finding that the trial court erred by reviewing collateral materials and documents outside the complaint itself when evaluating the motion to dismiss.
A trial court errs when it considers collateral materials, exhibits, and other evidence beyond the complaint itself in evaluating a motion to dismiss. A motion to dismiss tests only the legal sufficiency of the complaint's allegations, and the court must accept all material allegations as true without speculating whether they can ultimately be proven.
[1] A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint and requires the court to consider only the allegations within the four corners of the complaint.
[2] A trial court errs when it considers collateral materials or extraneous evidence in ruling on a motion to dismiss.
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 tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint.”
Establishes the limited scope of a motion to dismiss
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarbado filed a second amended complaint against Green & Murphy, P.A. for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, and against State Farm…
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 Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAHOOD, J.
Brenda Barbado appeals the dismissal of her complaint for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against appel-lee, Green & Murphy, P.A., and for breach of contract against appellee, State Farm. In the final judgment, the trial court indicated that it had reviewed the court file and memoranda of law and had conducted independent research. No hearing was held on the motion; the trial court sua sponte dispensed with oral argument as noted in the final judgment. The court concluded that “[t]he allegations contained in Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint are inconsistent with the record of the aforesaid file as well as the exhibits heretofore filed in the instant litigation.” We agree with appellant that it was error for the trial court to review collateral materials in considering appellees’ motion to dismiss.
A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Bess v. Eagle Capital, Inc., 704 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). A court may not go beyond the four corners of the complaint in considering the legal sufficiency of the allegations. Id.; Sigma Fin. Corp. v. Investment Loss Recovery Servs., Inc., 673 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Fish v. Post of Amvets No. 85, 560 So. 2d 337, 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)(“Where a complaint is dismissed based on extraneous evidence leading the judge to believe that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief, the judge has reversibly erred”). For example, defenses such as collateral estoppel, res judicata, and the expiration of the statute of limitations are appropriately raised in the answer, and not on a motion to dismiss. See United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Selz, 637 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
“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.” Mancher v. Seminole Tribe of Fla., Inc., 708 So. 2d 327, 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(reversing dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction where the trial court had considered sworn affidavits filed on behalf of the defendant, which tended to show that it was protected from the suit by sovereign immunity); see also Perry v. Schlumbrecht, M.D., 724 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)(holding that, on motion to dismiss, it was error for trial court to consider whether the incident, as alleged, involved potential medical malpractice or simple negligence instead of merely whether the amended complaint stated a cause of action for medical malpractice); Cowder v. Hillsborough, County, 715 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)(holding that it was reversible error for trial court, on defense motion, to dismiss complaint, based upon factual finding). Instead, on a motion to dismiss, all material allegations are accepted as true; speculation by the court as to whether the allegations will ultimately be proven is not permitted. See Maciejewski v. Holland, 441 So. 2d 703, 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
At this juncture, it was error for the trial court to consider collateral matters and make a determination of whether appellant would ultimately be able to prove her case. We, therefore, reverse the final judgment, and remand with directions to reinstate appellant’s cause of action.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
FARMER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Susan Fixel, Inc. v. Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc., 842 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…1998). Consideration of potential affirmative defenses or speculation about the sufficiency of evidence which plaintiff will likely produce on the merits is wholly irrelevant and immaterial to deciding such a motion. Barbado v. Green & Murphy, P.A., 758 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Abrams v. General Ins. Co., 460 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Parkway Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Allstate, Ins. Co., 393 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Casting the allegations of the Third Amended Complaint in a light most favorable…
-
Samuels v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale, 782 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…bits attached to the complaint as true. See Visor v. Buhl, 760 So. 2d 274, 275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Abele v. Sawyer, 750 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). A court may not go beyond the four corners of the complaint. See Barbado v. Green & Murphy, P.A., 758 So. 2d 1173, 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Asserting inconsistent allegations in a complaint is permissible. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(g); Belz Investco Ltd. Partnership v. Groupo [*495] Immobiliano Cababie, S.A., 721 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). While occasiona…
-
Taylor v. City OF Riviera Beach, 801 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…Lauderdale, 782 So. 2d 489, 495 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (citation omitted). A court may not go beyond the four corners of the complaint and must accept the facts alleged therein and exhibits attached as true. Id. at 494; Barbado v. Green & Murphy, P.A., 758 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). All reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the pleader. Visor v. Buhl, 760 So. 2d 274, 275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). “ ‘Whether a complaint is sufficient to state a cause of action is an issue of law. Consequently, the rulin…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mancher v. Seminole Tribe OF Fla., Inc., 708 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Bess v. Eagle Cap., Inc., 704 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- MacIejewski v. William M. Holland, Jr., P.A., 441 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Selz, 637 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- P.P. Fish and Irene Fish v. Post OF Amvets # 85, 560 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- A.V.B. v. State, 715 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Sigma Fin. Corp. v. Inv. Loss Recovery Servs., Inc., 673 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Perry v. Linda Ann Schlumbrecht, M.D., 724 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)