MIGUEL V. PEREZ ESCALONA, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, 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.
Miguel Perez Escalona, a City of Miami Beach engineer, sued under Florida's Whistleblower's Act after his termination, claiming he reported safety and environmental concerns about a water line construction project to fellow engineers. The trial court entered judgment on the pleadings for the City, but the appellate court reversed, holding that whether the recipients of Perez Escalona's emails qualified as "appropriate local officials" under the statute was a disputed factual question that could not be resolved on the pleadings alone.
The court reversed the judgment on the pleadings, holding that the pleadings do not conclusively establish that none of the three engineers who received Perez Escalona's emailed report qualified as an "appropriate local official" under the statute. Because this is a disputed factual question, judgment on the pleadings was improper and the case must proceed to further proceedings.
[1] A judgment on the pleadings is reviewed de novo.
[2] A motion for judgment on the pleadings must be decided wholly on the pleadings and is granted only if the pleadings establish that the movant is entitled to judgment as a…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A "motion for judgment on the pleadings must be decided wholly on the pleadings" and is granted only if the pleadings establish that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Establishes the standard for granting judgment on the pleadings—the pleadings must conclusively establish the movant's entitlement to judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePerez Escalona worked as an engineer and project coordinator for the City of Miami Beach and was terminated after reporting concerns about a City wate…
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 Judgment On The Pleadings Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Miguel V. Perez Escalona worked as an engineer and project coordinator for Appellee City of Miami. Beach. After the City terminated his employment, Perez Escalona sued the City under Florida’s Whistle-blower’s Act, section 112.3187 of' the Florida Statutes. Perez Escalona maintained that his termination was a retaliation for ’ his reporting his concerns about a City water line construction project for which he served as project coordinator,
. The trial court entered judgment on the pleadings in. favor of the. City, holding that the pleadings conclusively established that Perez Escalona had failed to report his complaints in compliance with section 112.3187(6). This provision requires that, for his or her complaint to be actionable, a whistleblower must have notified either the City Manager, as chief executive officer of the City, or another “appropriate local official” of the City. § 112,3187(6), Fla. Stat. (2011). While Perez Escalona concedes that he did not notify the City Manager, he alleges in his amended complaint that he emailed his fellow engineers in the City’s Public Works Department to express his concerns about safety and environmental issues at the construction site, and that these colleagues each were an *724“appropriate local official” pursuant to the statute. The City denies these allegations in its answer to Perez Escalona’s amended complaint.
We review de novo a judgment on the pleadings. Glenn v. Roberts, 95 So.3d 271, 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). A “motion for judgment on the pleadings must be decided wholly on the pleadings” and is granted only if the pleadings establish that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Clarke v. Henderson, 74 So.3d 112, 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). In determining whether the movant is entitled to judgment on the pleadings, all allegations in the non-moving party’s complaint must be taken as true and all allegations in the moving party’s answer, which have been denied, must be taken as false. Salussolia v. Nunnari, 215 So.3d 156, 157 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
For the City to prevail at this stage of the proceedings, the pleadings would have to establish as a matter of law that none of the three engineers who received Perez Escalona’s emailed report was an “appropriate local official” (i.e., one authorized to receive, investigate and process a whistleblower’s complaint) under section 112.3187(6). See Igwe v. City of Miami, 208 So.3d 150, 153-54 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Cummins v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs., 671 So.2d 893, 893 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Op. Att’y Gen. 99-07. Indeed, our de novo review of the pleadings identifies this very issue as a disputed one that cannot be determined on the pleadings alone.
We, therefore, reverse the trial court’s judgment on the pleadings and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vincenzo Bruno v. Drechsler, 342 So. 3d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…which is required to justify setting aside a default.”); Kraus v. Kraus, 344 So. 3d 634, 635 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“We review a trial court’s order denying a motion for judgment on the pleadings de novo.”); Perez Escalona v. City of Miami Beach, 227 So. 3d 722, 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“A motion for judgment on the pleadings must be decided wholly on the pleadings and is granted only if the pleadings establish that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”) (internal quotations omitted); Kr…
-
Kraus v. Kraus (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Igwe v. City OF Miami, 208 So. 3d 150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Cummins v. Lake Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 671 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Glenn v. Roberts, 95 So. 3d 271 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Fern P. Clarke v. Henderson, 74 So. 3d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Piero Salussolia, P.A. v. Gianni Nunnari & Hollywood Gang Prods., LLC, 215 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)