DR. GLENN PARKER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF EDUCATION, ACTING FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY, LARRY ABELE, INDIVIDUALLY, HENRY GLICK, INDIVIDUALLY, AND CHARLES CNUDDE, INDIVIDUALLY, 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.
Dr. Parker appeals a summary judgment dismissing his breach of contract claims against Florida State University and individual defendants for failure to award salary increases and other compensation. The court affirms the dismissal of most claims but reverses as to 'across-the-board' salary increase claims, finding they are not barred by res judicata because they involve breaches of additional agreements occurring after the original lawsuit.
The court held that the 'across-the-board' salary increase claims are not barred by res judicata because they pertain to breaches of agreements beyond the original contract and allege breaches occurring after those that formed the basis of the original action. The court affirmed summary judgment as to the tortious interference claims and other damage claims but reversed as to the across-the-board claims.
[1] Res judicata does not bar claims for breaches of contract that occur subsequent to the breaches litigated in a prior action, even if both actions involve the same contrac…
[2] A claim for tortious interference with contractual relationships requires evidence to support the claims against individual defendants.
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“Inasmuch as the 'across-the-board' claims in count one pertain to breaches of more than the agreement originally sued on, which were alleged to have taken place after the breaches that were the basis for the original action, we agree with appellant that those claims are not res judicata.”
Establishes the court's core holding that subsequent breaches of additional agreements are not barred by res judicata from a prior lawsuit.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Parker had previously obtained judgment against FSU for breach of a salary contract in 1998. Following subsequent salary disputes in ensuing years…
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 Tortious Interference With Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
BENTON, J.
On remand from our decision in Parker v. Fla. Bd. of Regents ex rel. Fla. State Univ., 724 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), judgment was entered against appellees for breach of a salary contract “based upon a conditional contract which was capable of being performed by FSU within one year.” 724 So. 2d at 169-70. On account of salary disputes in ensuing years, a second action was filed in circuit court, eventuating in the summary judgment from which the present appeal has been taken. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
Below, appellees never moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies or pursue a grievance. Instead, they moved for summary judgment, contending that no evidence supported the claims against the individual defendants for tortious interference with contractual relationships. See Abruzzo v. Haller, 603 So. 2d 1338, 1339-40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). They also contended that the damage claims for failure to grant merit pay increases and for failure to limit Dr. Parker’s teaching load were not claims on which relief could be granted, if the pertinent documents were properly construed. The learned trial judge accepted these contentions in granting summary judgment, and we find no error in these rulings.
Certain claims in count one sought damages for failure to award Professor Parker “across-the-board” salary increases. As to these claims, the professor at first relied only on the written agreement that had been sued on in the original lawsuit, and appellees contended that the doctrine of res judicata precluded relief. Amended pleadings invoked the collective bargaining agreement as well as the written agreement originally sued on, but summary judgment was entered as to these claims on a res judicata theory, nevertheless.
Inasmuch as the “across-the-board” claims in count one pertain to breaches of more than the agreement originally sued on, which were alleged to have taken place after the breaches that were the basis for the original action, we agree with appellant that those claims are not res judicata. See U.S. Project Mgmt., Inc. v. Parc Royale E. Dev., Inc., 861 So. 2d 74, 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (holding res judicata was no bar even “[tjhough both actions involve breach of contract, [because] U.S. Project is now suing based on a subsequent breach of the Consulting Agreement”).
Accordingly, we affirm except as to the “across-the-board” claims, reverse the grant of summary judgment as to those claims only, and remand for further proceedings.
ALLEN and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Newberry Square Fla. Laundromat, LLC v. Jim's Coin Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc., 296 So. 3d 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…12 action. Because the facts and events that gave rise to the 2012 action are different from the 1996 action, identity of the cause of action is not present, and res judicata does not apply.”); Parker v. State Bd. of Educ. ex. rel. Fla. State Univ., 865 So. 2d 559, 560 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding that “[i]nasmuch as the ‘across-the-board’ claims in count one pertain to breaches of more than the agreement originally sued on, which were alleged to have taken place after the breaches that were the basis for the…
-
Gregor Woodward v. Orator E. Woodward, 192 So. 3d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…f res judicata ... is not applicable where the claims in the two cases concern different periods of time.” M.C.G. v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sch. Bd., 927 So. 2d 224, 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). See also Parker v. State Bd. of Educ. ex rel. Fla. State Univ., 865 So. 2d 559, 660 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Inter-Active Servs., Inc. v. Heathrow Master Ass’n, 809 So. 2d 900, 902-03 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). The trial court also erred in finding that laches barred the action. Section 95.11(6), Florida Statutes (2012), provides that…
-
Crescent Shore Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Lani KAI, L.P., 330 So. 3d 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…ms of subsequent breach arising from the same contract. See, e.g., Albrecht v. State, 444 So. 2d 8, 12 (Fla. 1984), superseded by statute on other grounds; U.S. Project Mgmt., 861 So. 2d at 77; Parker v. State Bd. of Educ. ex rel. Fla. State Univ., 865 So. 2d 559, 560 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Here, it is undisputed that three of the four elements required for res judicata to apply—identity of the thing sued for, identity of the parties, and identity of the quality of the person or thing sued for, i.e., their sam…
Authorities Cited
- Abruzzo v. Haller, 603 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- U.S. Project Mgmt., Inc. v. Parc Royale E. Dev., Inc., 861 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Parker v. State OF Fla. Bd. OF Regents, 724 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- C.K.C. Invs., Inc. v. Chelsea Parc OF Tuscawilla, Ltd., 724 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)