Chinigo v. Marine Dynamics, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chinigo v. Marine Dynamics, Inc.

816 So. 2d 244, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6577, 2002 WL 985428

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 15, 2002

DocketNo. 3D01-3431

StatusPublished

This text of 816 So. 2d 244 (Chinigo v. Marine Dynamics, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chinigo v. Marine Dynamics, Inc., 816 So. 2d 244, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6577, 2002 WL 985428 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Andrew Chinigo appeals from an order dismissing his complaint which alleged deceptive trade practices and fraud in the inducement. We reverse.

Appellee Marine Dynamics, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss due to improper venue, failure to state a cause of action, and lack of actual damages. The trial court granted the motion without specifying the grounds. If the complaint was dismissed for improper venue, the order of dismissal would be an appealable order under Florida Appellate Rule of Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(A). A review of the transcript indicates that this was probably the case, but we decline to engage in this kind of guesswork.

We therefore remand with directions that the trial court state the basis of its ruling on Marine Dynamics’ motion to dismiss. Additionally, if the deficiency in the complaint appears curable by amendment, leave to amend should be given. Hemisphere Warehouses, Inc., v. Cayhold Ltd., 438 So.2d 988 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI