IRENE FLORESCU,
v.
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD,
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.
On a motion to dismiss, a court must limit its review to the four corners of the complaint and assume all allegations are true, and therefore cannot rely on extrinsic evidence such as an employment contract to contradict the plaintiff's allegation that she was employed by the defendant.
[1] On a motion to dismiss, a court may not consider extrinsic evidence outside the complaint, including employment contracts, to contradict allegations within the four corne…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“In considering a motion to dismiss, the trial court is limited to the four corners of the complaint, and the allegations in the complaint are assumed to be true.”
The court stating the standard for reviewing motions to dismiss
Irene Florescu, a seaman, alleged in her amended complaint that she was injured while working within the course and scope of her employment aboard a v…
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 Failure To Provide Maintenance And Cure cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed June 5, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________
No. 3D17-2110 Lower Tribunal No. 16-20926 ________________
Irene Florescu, Appellant,
vs.
Royal Caribbean Cruises, LTD., Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara Areces, Judge.
Kula & Associates, P.A., Elliot B. Kula, W. Aaron Daniel and William D. Mueller, for appellant.
Foreman Friedman, P.A., Catherine J. MacIvor, Darren Friedman and Jacob Resnick, for appellee.
Before SALTER, FERNANDEZ and LINDSEY, JJ.
FERNANDEZ, J.
Irene Florescu (“Florescu”) appeals the trial court’s dismissal of Count II of her amended complaint against Royal Caribbean Cruises, LTD. (“RCCL”). Florescu
2 alleged in Count II of her amended complaint, in relevant part, that she was acting within the course and scope of her employment as a seaman aboard a vessel owned and operated by RCCL, that she was injured while in the service of the vessel and entitled to maintenance and cure, and that RCCL failed to provide maintenance and cure as required by law.
RCCL filed a motion to dismiss Count II of Florescu’s complaint, alleging that Count II failed to state a cause of action because Florescu was not employed by RCCL and that she failed to join an indispensable party, Steiner Transocean Limited, Florescu’s employer and RCCL’s subcontractor. RCCL attached a copy of Florescu’s employment contract with Steiner to RCCL’s motion to dismiss. The trial court granted RCCL’s motion to dismiss, finding that Florescu “failed to allege that the Defendant is Plaintiff’s employer.”
In considering a motion to dismiss, the trial court is limited to the four corners of the complaint, and the allegations in the complaint are assumed to be true. W. Kendall Holdings, LLC v. Downrite Eng’g Corp., 112 So. 3d 614, 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Assuming the facts alleged in Count II of Florescu’s amended complaint, it is impossible to conclude that RCCL is not Florescu’s employer, particularly when she alleged that she was “acting within the course and scope of her employment as a seafarer [] aboard a vessel owned and operated by Defendant, RCCL.” Although it may be true that Florescu was not employed by RCCL, one must not look beyond
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Halsey Minor & Save Hialeah Racing, Inc. v. Brunetti, 43 So. 3d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- W. Kendall Holdings, LLC v. Downrite Eng'g Corp., 112 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)