WILNER HARTLEY & METCALF, P.A. AND FARAH & FARAH, P.A., APPELLANT,
v.
HOWARD & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.A., AND RICHARD A. DAYNARD, ESQ., 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.
Appellants challenge a non-final order denying their motion to dismiss for improper venue. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, finding it moot because the trial court granted leave to file an amended complaint that superseded the complaint attacked in the motion to dismiss.
The motion to dismiss was rendered moot by the filing of the amended complaint, and the trial court properly denied it as moot. The appellate court affirmed because the trial court could have properly denied the motion on this basis, and the issue of venue is for the trial court to determine in the first instance on a motion to dismiss directed to the Verified Third Amended Complaint.
[1] The filing of an amended complaint renders moot the legal sufficiency of the original complaint.
[2] An appellate court is required to affirm a trial court's ruling if there is any basis in the record that would support the ruling, even if the trial court's reasoning is…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the filing of an amended complaint renders moot the legal sufficiency of the original complaint”
Establishes the legal principle that mootness applies when an amended complaint is filed, rendering prior motions directed at the original complaint moot.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue directed to the Verified Substitute Amended Complaint, which alleged a single cause of action …
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 Amended Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants seek review of a non-final order denying their motion to dismiss for improper venue. The motion was directed to the “Verified Substitute Amended Complaint,” which alleged a single cause of action for an accounting. The order denying the motion to dismiss also granted Appellees’ motion for leave to file a “Verified Third Amended Complaint,” which included additional venue allegations and also alleged additional causes of action based on the facts developed through the limited discovery allowed by the trial court on the Verified Substitute Amended Complaint. The motion to dismiss the Verified Substitute Amended Complaint was rendered moot by the trial court’s order allowing the filing of the Verified Third Amended Complaint. See Vanderberg v. Rios, 798 So.2d 806, 807 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (explaining that the filing of an amended complaint renders moot the legal sufficiency of the original complaint). The record does not include a transcript of the hearing on the motion to dismiss and the trial court’s order does not explain its rationale for denying the motion; however, because the trial court could have properly denied the motion to dismiss as moot, we affirm the order on appeal. See Dade County Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638, 644 (Fla.1999) (explaining that the appellate court is required to affirm if there is any basis in the record that would support the trial court’s ruling). This decision should not be misconstrued as a determination that venue is proper in Leon County; that issue is for the trial court to determine in the first instance on a proper motion to dismiss the Verified Third Amended Complaint.
AFFIRMED.
WETHERELL, MARSTILLER, and RAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Calvert v. Aleckson, 390 So. 3d 758 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)…rotecting Freedom, Inc., 390 So. 3d 758, 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024) (holding that the case was moot because “the order on review is based on a financial impact statement that is no longer operative”); Wilner Hartley & Metcalf, P.A. v. Howard & Assocs., 65 So. 3d 620, 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding that a nonfinal order denying a motion to dismiss for improper venue became moot when the trial court allowed the filing of an amended complaint). DISMISSED. MAKAR, JAY, and SOUD, JJ., concur. ____________________…
Authorities Cited
- Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station Wqba, 731 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1999)
- Vanderberg v. Rios, 798 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)