LORI CURTIS, APPELLANT,
v.
CAL HENDERSON, SHERIFF OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND JAMES RIVARD PONTIAC, 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.
Curtis appealed the dismissal of her tort complaint against the sheriff based on governmental immunity. The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court improperly resolved factual disputes on a motion to dismiss by contradicting the material allegations of Curtis's amended complaint.
The trial court erred in dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice because on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, all material factual allegations in the complaint must be taken as true. The court was confined to the four corners of the complaint and cannot resolve factual disputes or make findings that contradict those allegations.
[1] The defense of workers' compensation immunity is an affirmative defense that cannot be raised on a motion to dismiss unless the allegations of a prior pleading demonstrat…
[2] A motion to dismiss a complaint tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations within the complaint itself.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the material factual allegations of the subject complaint must be taken as true.”
Establishes the fundamental rule that on a motion to dismiss, all factual allegations in the complaint are accepted as true
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA sheriff's deputy contacted Curtis's employer and a personal friend, falsely representing that Curtis was under active criminal investigation for pas…
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 Sufficiency Of Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.
The appellant, Lori Curtis, challenges a final order that dismisses with prejudice her amended complaint against the appel-lee, Cal Henderson, Sheriff of Hillsbor-ough County. We reverse.
Curtis filed an amended complaint alleging various causes of aetion-primarily various common law tort causes of action-against the sheriff and James Rivard Pontiac, who is not a party to this appeal. According to the averments of the amended complaint, Curtis’s claims arose from a situation wherein a sheriffs deputy contacted her employer, as well as a personal friend of hers, and falsely represented that she was the object of an active criminal investigation for passing worthless checks and that there was an active warrant out for her arrest. The amended complaint alleged that, while the deputy was purportedly acting in an official capacity, there was neither an open, active investigation of Curtis, nor was there a warrant out for her arrest. Thereafter, the sheriff filed an unsworn motion to dismiss, claiming that Curtis failed to state a cause of action. The sheriffs motion set forth several unsupported factual assertions, including a claim that the actions forming the basis of Curtis’s claims were taken pursuant to an active criminal investigation conducted by the sheriffs department. After a hearing, the trial court dismissed Curtis’s amended complaint with prejudice, concluding that her claims were barred by the doctrine of governmental immunity.
On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the material factual allegations of the subject complaint must be taken as true. See Davis v. Bell, 705 So. 2d 108, 109 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (citing Davidson v. Iona-McGregor Fire Protection & Rescue Dist., 674 So. 2d 858, 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)). The trial court is thus confined to the four corners of the complaint in making a determination, as the purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint and not to determine issues of fact. See Davis, 705 So. 2d at 110; Davidson, 674 So. 2d at 860.
Here, in dismissing Curtis’s amended complaint on the basis of governmental immunity, the trial court found, as a matter of fact, that the actions of the sheriffs deputy were taken in the course of an active criminal investigation. That finding directly contradicts the material factual allegations of the amended complaint. For that reason, the trial court erred in dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice, and we therefore reverse and remand this cause for further proceedings. And, since this issue is dispositive, we do not reach the other points Curtis has raised on this appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
BLUE and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marysol Sierra v. Associated Marine Insts., Inc., 850 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…the acts alleged. Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of Mrs. Sierra’s suit and remand for further proceedings. FACTS For these purposes we must treat the material factual allegations of Mrs. Sierra’s pleadings as true. See Curtis v. Henderson, 777 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). They reflect that Big Cypress Wilderness Institute was a “level 8” high-risk residential juvenile detention facility commonly known as a “boot camp,” housing felons aged fourteen to eighteen. It was located on federal land in.the…
-
Brock v. Bowein, 99 So. 3d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…ers of the complaint.” Murphy v. Bay Colony Prop. Owners Ass’n, 12 So. 3d 924, 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). “[T]he purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint and not to determine issues of fact.” Curtis v. Henderson, 777 So. 2d 1017, 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). “[T]he court is not permitted to speculate as to whether the allegations will ultimately be proven.” Maciejewski v. Holland, 441 So. 2d 703, 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). “[A] motion to dismiss should not be granted on the basis…
Authorities Cited
- Noboa v. De Noboa, 674 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Davis v. Bell, 705 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)