EDWARD ALLEN HARRELL ET AL., APPELLANTS.
v.
HESS OIL AND CHEMICAL CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, AND PARKHILL-GOODLOE CO., INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their complaint alleging pollution damage to Dunn's Creek brought as both a class action and individual damages claim. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that while the class action allegations were insufficient, plaintiffs were offered the opportunity to amend their complaint to pursue only individual claims but declined to do so.
The court held that the dismissal was proper because plaintiffs were afforded the opportunity to file an amended complaint eliminating the class action aspects and confining their claim to individual damages, but they elected not to do so. The complaint as framed did not meet the standards for a class action under Florida law.
[1] A complaint must allege sufficient ultimate facts to constitute a class action under the established law of the state.
[2] A trial court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action as a class action, even if it could potentially state a cause of action for individual damage…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“We agree with the trial court that the complaint as framed does not allege sufficient ultimate facts to constitute a class action within the meaning of the rule.”
Establishes that the appellate court upheld the trial court's determination that the complaint failed to meet class action requirements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs brought suit against Hess Oil and Chemical Corporation and Parkhill-Goodloe Co., Inc., alleging pollution of Dunn's Creek, a navigable 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 Class Action Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiffs have appealed a final judgment dismissing their complaint for damages which plaintiffs claim to have suffered as a result of the alleged pollution by defendants of Dunn’s Creek, a navigable stream or river in Duval County, Florida.
The judgment appealed was rendered consequent upon the court’s prior order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint which was brought as a class action by plaintiffs and all other persons owning property bordering on Dunn’s Creek and all persons who have had occasion to use the waterway since its alleged pollution by defendants. In the order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, plaintiffs were allowed 20 days in which to file an amended complaint, upon failure of which the action would stand dismissed with prejudice at the cost of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs elected not to file an amended complaint, so final judgment of dismissal was rendered.
We agree with the trial court that the complaint as framed does not allege sufficient ultimate facts to constitute a class action within the meaning of the rule.1 The allegations do not 'meet the standards for a class action as required by the established law of this state.2
Appellants contend that even if their complaint was not sufficient to constitute a class suit, it was nevertheless sufficient to state a valid cause of action for damages suffered by plaintiffs in their individual capacities as a result of the 'unlawful acts of defendants in polluting Dunn’s Creek. Because of this, appellants urge that their complaint should not have been dismissed but the allegations concerning the class action merely stricken. In support of this position appellants rely on the decision of Gordon Finance, Inc. v. Belzaguy.3 It is our view that appellants’ position and their reliance upon the cited authority are not well taken. The Gordon Finance case is distinguishable on the facts and legal issues involved and did not directly pass upon the question of law present in the case sub judice. In Gordon the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint because it was not sufficient to state a cause of action as a class suit was denied even though it was conceded that the allegations were sufficient to state a cause of action for damages suffered by plaintiffs in their individual capacities. Promptly after such order was rendered, plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint by eliminating the class suit aspects thereof and confining their claim to damages suffered as individuals. Interlocutory appeal was taken from the order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss. In affirming the order appealed, the Third District Court of Appeal merely held that the trial court was correct in not dismissing the action even though the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to constitute it a class suit. Such holding was predicated upon the showing in the record that plaintiffs had a pending motion in the cause to amend their complaint to claim damages only as individuals and not on behalf of a class whom they originally purported to represent. The cause was remanded for further proceedings which contemplated a trial on the amended complaint rather than the original complaint to which the motion to dismiss was directed.
In the case sub judice plaintiffs were granted permission to file an amended complaint if they so desired, but they elected not to do so. It was only upon their declination to plead further that the final judgment of dismissal was rendered. Un*544der the circumstances the judgment was proper and is not vulnerable to attack on the grounds urged by appellants.4
The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harrell v. Hess OIL & Chem. Corp., 287 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1973)…DEKLE, Justice. This case comes to us on petition for writ of certiorari alleging conflict between the decision of the First District at 272 So. 2d 542 and Gordon Finance, Inc. v. Belzaguy, 216 So. 2d 240 (Fla.App.3d 1968). Jurisdiction is asserted under Article V, § 3(b)(3), F.S.A., of our State Constitution. Petitioners sought to bring a class action against respondents seeking damages for the r…1 / 2
-
Evans v. ST. Regis Paper Co., 287 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1973)…n amended complaint on their own behalves, and not as a class action. Petitioners chose not to amend the complaint, and the cause was dismissed. The District Court affirmed, per curiam, on the authority of its Harrell v. Hess Oil and Chemical Corp., 272 So. 2d 542 (Fla.App.1st 1973), cert. granted 287 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1973). Conflict exists between the decision of the 1st DCA in the instant action reported at 277 So. 2d 319 (Fla.App.1st 1973), and the decisions of Balbontin v. Porias, 215 So. 2d 732 (Fla.1968…
-
Abravaya v. Fla. Power & Light Co. (No. 2), 39 Fla. Supp. 153 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1973)…r, 275 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d Dist. 1973); Watnick v. Florida Commercial Banks, Inc., 275 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d Dist. 1973); Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Pasco, 275 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d Dist. 1973); and Harrell v. Hess Oil and Chemical Corporation, 272 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st Dist. 1973). Further, the entire complaint was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action for negligence because the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege ultimate facts demonstrating the existence of a duty, a breach of that dut…
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
- Port Royal, Inc. v. Conboy, 154 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Wilson v. First Nat'l Bank OF Miami Springs, 254 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Gordon Fin., Inc. v. Belzaguy, 216 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Brown v. Oren A. Ellingson, 224 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Buntin v. Carter, 234 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)