LITON LIGHTING, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
PLATINUM TELEVISION GROUP, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
A trial judge cannot sua sponte dismiss an action based on affirmative defenses not raised by the parties in their pleadings.
Liton Lighting sued Platinum Television for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The trial judge sua sponte dismissed the case due to the contrac…
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 Sua Sponte Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
Liton Lighting, Inc., a California corporation, sued Platinum Television Group, Inc., a Florida corporation, for breach of contract and, in the alternative, unjust enrichment. After approximately five years of litigation, the case was set for non-jury trial commencing in June 2007. During the course of trial, the judge sua sponte dismissed the case because the contract on which Liton sued provided for non-binding arbitration, which the parties failed to utilize. Additionally, if their dispute could not be resolved, the contract had a forum selection clause, placing venue in federal court. Liton asserts that the trial judge was without authority to sua sponte dismiss this action. We agree.
In its complaint, Liton sought damages in excess of $15,000.00, claiming actual and consequential damages resulting from Platinum’s breach of contract. In its answer, Platinum raised as its only affirmative defense that the products delivered to it by Liton were defective. Platinum never asserted as an affirmative defense the failure to arbitrate or improper venue.
A trial judge may not sua sponte dismiss an action based on affirmative defenses not raised by proper pleadings. See Kerrigan, Estess, Rankin, & McLeod v. State, 711 So.2d 1246, 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). When a trial judge sua sponte dismisses a cause of action on grounds “not pleaded,” the trial judge denies the parties due process because the claim is being dismissed without “notice and an opportunity for the parties and counsel to be heard.” Id.
In the instant case, the trial judge denied Liton due process because he dis*368missed its claim for failure to arbitrate and improper venue, which were two affirmative defenses not raised in Platinum’s Answer. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and Remanded.
TAYLOR, J., and BLANC, PETER D., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Lawson v. Frank, 197 So. 3d 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…e parties due process because the claim is being dismissed without ‘notice and an opportunity for the parties ... to be heard.’ ” Barile v. Gayheart, 80 So. 3d 1085, 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (quoting Liton Lighting v. Platinum, Television Grp., Inc., 2 So. 3d 366, 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)); see also Hancock v. Tipton, 732 So. 2d 369, 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“Where an order adjudicates issues neither presented by the pleadings nor litigated by the parties, it denies fundamental due process and must be reversed…
-
Runner O. Santana v. Henry, 12 So. 3d 843 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…not clear DOC would have defended in this fashion, left to its own devices. “A trial judge may not sua sponte dismiss an action based on affirmative defenses not raised by proper pleadings.” Liton Lighting v. Platinum Televi [*848] sion Group, Inc., 2 So. 3d 366, 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citing Kerrigan, Estess, Rankin & McLeod v. State, 711 So. 2d 1246, 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)). See Lenoir v. Jones, 979 So. 2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (trial court’s sua sponte dismissal reversed because plaintiff wa…
-
Gmac Mortg., LLC. v. Hemmawan Choengkroy and Chalermsak Maharuenchan, 98 So. 3d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…e process because the claim is being dismissed without ‘notice and an opportunity for the parties and counsel to be heard.’ ” Nat'l City Bank v. Nagel, 95 So. 3d 458, 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quoting Liton Lighting v. Platinum Television Grp., Inc., 2 So. 3d 366, 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. POLEN and CONNER, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kerrigan v. State, 711 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)