Clements v. Hillsborough County Health Department

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Clements v. Hillsborough County Health Department

837 So. 2d 1085, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 3796, 2003 WL 943736

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 14, 2003

DocketNo. 2D02-1309

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 837 So. 2d 1085 (Clements v. Hillsborough County Health Department) 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

Clements v. Hillsborough County Health Department, 837 So. 2d 1085, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 3796, 2003 WL 943736 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

COVINGTON, Judge.

Paul Clements, formerly employed as a psychologist with the Florida Department of Health/Hillsborough County Health Department, appeals the dismissal with prejudice of his amended complaint. While we affirm without comment the dismissal of Clements’ invasion of privacy claim (Count I), wrongful discharge claim (Count II), and declaratory action claim (Count V), we reverse the dismissal with prejudice of the remainder of Clements’ claims.

“Where a party may be able to allege additional facts to support its cause of action or to support another cause of action based on a different legal theory, dismissal with prejudice is an abuse of discretion.” Kapley v. Borchers, 714 So.2d 1217, 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). In his motion [1086]*1086for rehearing, Clements submits that he can make such allegations. On remand, Clements should be given one additional chance to amend his complaint in an effort to articulate a sustainable cause of action.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded with instructions.

CASANUEVA and SALCINES, JJ., concur.

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

COVINGTON, Judge.

Paul Clements, formerly employed as a psychologist with the Florida Department of Health/Hillsborough County Health Department, appeals the dismissal with prejudice of his amended complaint. While we affirm without comment the dismissal of Clements’ invasion of privacy claim (Count I), wrongful discharge claim (Count II), and declaratory action claim (Count V), we reverse the dismissal with prejudice of the remainder of Clements’ claims.

“Where a party may be able to allege additional facts to support its cause of action or to support another cause of action based on a different legal theory, dismissal with prejudice is an abuse of discretion.” Kapley v. Borchers, 714 So.2d 1217, 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). In his motion [1086]*1086for rehearing, Clements submits that he can make such allegations. On remand, Clements should be given one additional chance to amend his complaint in an effort to articulate a sustainable cause of action.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded with instructions.

CASANUEVA and SALCINES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

837 So. 2d 1085, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 3796, 2003 WL 943736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clements-v-hillsborough-county-health-department-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack