ART LOVI, APPELLANT,
v.
NORTH SHORE BANK, A FLORIDA BANKING 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reviewed an interlocutory order in which a trial judge struck three paragraphs from a plaintiff's complaint and granted summary judgment on compensatory damages. The court held that the judge's decision to strike the paragraphs entirely was erroneous because they contained allegations material to the plaintiff's compensatory damages claims.
The court held that striking the paragraphs in their entirety was erroneous because the paragraphs contained material allegations relevant to the plaintiff's compensatory damages claims. If any allegations in the paragraphs are relevant, the motion to strike should have been denied.
“The motion to strike being addressed to the complained of paragraphs in their entirety, if any of the allegations contained in said paragraphs are relevant the motion to strike should have been denied.”
Establishes the governing legal standard for motions to strike entire paragraphs from complaints.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArt Lovi filed a common law action against North Shore Bank. The trial judge struck Paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 from Lovi's complaint and granted summary j…
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 Petition For Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
The above causes both seek review of a combined order of a circuit judge in a common law action, striking three paragraphs of the plaintiff’s complaint, granting a summary judgment as to punitive damages and as to compensatory damages sought in the stricken paragraphs, and transferring the cause to the Civil Court of Record. These appeals have previously been consolidated by order of this court with directions to proceed as a “regular” appeal. This order was entered prior to the record on appeal being filed in this cause, pursuant to a stipulation by counsel. After examining the record, briefs and hearing oral argument, these actions seeking review of an interlocutory order in a common law action will be considered as petitions for certiorari, as authorized by § 59.45, Fla. Stat., F.S.A.; Tantillo v. Miliman, Fla. 1956, 87 So.2d 413; Kautzman v. Bandler, Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 256; Easley v. The Garden Sanctuary, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 120 So.2d 59, 78 A.L.R.2d 1199. The court’s prior opinion, dated December 18, 1961 treating this review as a “regular” appeal, has been withdrawn in lieu of this opinion.
Having considered the briefs, record on appeal and oral argument as a petition for certiorari to review the complained of order, it appears that the trial judge’s order striking Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 from the complaint and awarding a summary judgment as to compensatory damages was erroneous. The motion to strike being addressed to the complained of paragraphs in their entirety, if any of the allegations contained in said paragraphs are relevant the motion to strike should have been denied. See: McIver & McKay v. Croom, 60 Fla. 123, 53 So. 545; Southern Turpentine Co. v. Douglass, 61 Fla. 424, 54 So. 385; St. Petersburg Novelty Works v. Battle, 66 Fla. 303, 63 So. 445; Randall v. Mickle, 103 Fla. 1229, 138 So. 14, 141 So. 317, 86 A.L.R. 804; Batchelder v. Prestman, 103 Fla. 852, 138 So. 473; 25 Fla.Jur., Pleadings, §§ 131, 132. An examination of the complained of paragraphs discloses that they do contain allegations which would be material to the compensatory loss alleged by the plaintiff and, therefore, it was error to strike the paragraphs in their entirety, as said paragraphs contain allegations sufficient to support an award of compensatory loss to the plaintiff if same can be established.
The petition for certiorari is granted, and so much of the order as struck Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 from the complaint and *587awarded the defendant a summary judgment as to compensatory damages sought by these paragraphs is hereby quashed.
Certiorari granted; portions' of order quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)…Co. v. Shupack, 335 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Hotel Roosevelt Co. v. Hill, 196 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); But see Radio Communications Corp. v. Oki Electronics of America, Inc., 277 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Lovi v. North Shore Bank, 137 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 143 So. 2d 492 (1962). Orders granting discovery, on the other hand, have traditionally been reviewed by certiorari. See e.g., Procter & Gamble Co. v. Swilley, 462 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Greyhound Lines, Inc. v…
-
Doby v. Griffin, 144 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…a petition for common law writ of certiorari, and we, therefore, consider whether or not we should treat the notice of appeal and appellee’s cross assignments of error as petitions for common law certiorari. Lovi v. North Shore Bank, Fla. App.1962, 137 So. 2d 585. “We are at once confronted with the propriety of reviewing by certiorari an interlocutory order in an action at law. Our Supreme Court, in recently considering this proposition, expressed the rule thusly: ‘This court will review an interlocutory o…
-
Talmudical Acad. OF Baltimore v. Harris, 238 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…e of a portion of a complaint and transfer the remaining portion of the claim to courts with lesser jurisdictional amounts. See Easley v. Garden Sanctuary, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 120 So. 2d 59, 78 A.L.R. 2d 1199; Lovi v. North Shore Bank, Fla.App.1962, 137 So. 2d 585. We elect to treat the notice of appeal in the present cause as a petition for certiorari. Article V, § 5(3), Florida Constitution (1968), F.S.A.; § 59.-45, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The question before us therefore is whether the trial judge departed from…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Enrico Tantillo and Sylvia Tantillo v. Miliman, 87 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1956)
- Randall v. Mickle, 103 Fla. 1229 (Fla. 1931)
- Batchelder v. Prestman, 103 Fla. 852 (Fla. 1931)
- Easley v. THE Garden Sanctuary, Inc., 120 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- The S. Turpentine Co. v. Douglass, 61 Fla. 424 (Fla. 1911)
- St. Petersburg Novelty Works v. Battle, 66 Fla. 303 (Fla. 1913)
- Kautzman v. Bandler, 118 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- McIver v. Sallie Bell Croom, 60 Fla. 123 (Fla. 1910)