ERNEST L. BASS, APPELLANT,
v.
SERVPRO INDUSTRIES, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing certain claims and granting summary judgment on others, reversing those decisions.
Appellant sued Appellee arising from a franchise relationship. The trial court granted judgment for Appellee on various motions. Appellant appealed.…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Ernest Bass instituted a civil action against appellee Servpro Industries, Incorporated, asserting various claims arising from a franchise relationship be tween the two parties. The trial court granted final judgment in favor of Servpro after ruling for it on various motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. On appeal, Bass challenges many of these rulings. We affirm without further comment except in regard to the following claims.
First, the trial court erred in dismissing the claims in counts IV, VIII, and IX of the second amended complaint and counts III and V of the third amended complaint because Bass sufficiently alleged facts that, if true, would entitle him to relief. See W.R. Townsend Contracting, Inc. v. Jensen Civil Constr., Inc., 728 So. 2d 297, 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). The trial court also erred in dismissing count I, paragraph 13Q of the fourth amended complaint because “a stay, not a dismissal or abatement, was the proper remedy in this case.” Corcoran v. Fed Land Bank of Columbia, 478 So. 2d 1161, 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). We reverse the trial court’s orders as to these claims.
Second, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the claims in count I, paragraphs 13B, 13L, 17A(ii), 17D, 17E, 17F, and 17G of the third amended complaint because Servpro did not meet its burden of presenting competent evidence that proved the nonexistance of any genuine issue of material fact and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s orders as to these claims.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED.
WOLF, C.J., LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Prettyman v. State, 951 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…portion of the record. This was recently reaffirmed by the supreme court in Henry v. State, 937 So. 2d 563, 576-77 (Fla.2006). See also Thompson v. State, 759 So. 2d 650 (Fla.2000); Ferguson v. Singletary, 632 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1993); Ortiz v. State, 860 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), review denied, 880 So. 2d 1212 (Fla.2004).3 [*30] In our case, petitioner does not allege that any specific error occurred in the portions of the proceedings below not included in the record on appeal. It was trial counsel who d…
-
Zankman v. State, 992 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…is request was denied. He now contends that “questionable” jurors served on his jury, and that at least one African-American juror was dismissed despite a defense objection without a valid race-neutral reason being given. We held in Ortiz v. State, 860 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), review denied, 880 So. 2d 1212 (Fla.2004), that to show ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate a specific error or omission that falls outside the range of acceptable performance, and demonstr…
-
Marquies Brisbane v. State, 190 So. 3d 244 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…lls outside the range of acceptable performance, and demonstrate, as well, that the deficiency compromised the appellate process so as to undermine our confidence in the correctness. of the result.” Zankman, 992 So. 2d at 366 (citing Ortiz v. State, 860 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)). “In the case of appellate counsel, this means the deficiency must concern an issue which is error affecting the outcome, not simply harmless error.” Freeman, 761 So. 2d at 1069 (quoting Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997, 1001 (Fl…
Authorities Cited
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen AT Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000)
- W.R. Townsend Contracting, Inc. v. Jensen Civil Constr., Inc., 728 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Corcoran v. The Fed. Land Bank OF Columbia, 478 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)