Motyczka v. Hall

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Motyczka v. Hall

706 So. 2d 959, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2681, 1998 WL 117400

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 18, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2270

StatusPublished

This text of 706 So. 2d 959 (Motyczka v. Hall) 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

Motyczka v. Hall, 706 So. 2d 959, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2681, 1998 WL 117400 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the underlying action, the trial court entered an order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice portions of the plaintiffs’ amended complaint as a sham and the remaining portions for failure to state a cause of action. We find that, with regard to the portions of the amended complaint that were dismissed as a sham, the trial court erred by granting the dismissal without first conducting an evidentiary hearing as is required by Rule 1.150, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. However, because the order does not specify which portions of the amended complaint were dismissed as a sham, we reverse and remand the entire cause. On remand, the parties shall be entitled to a new hearing on the motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. If that motion is granted, in whole or in part, plaintiff is entitled to have leave to amend.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

In the underlying action, the trial court entered an order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice portions of the plaintiffs’ amended complaint as a sham and the remaining portions for failure to state a cause of action. We find that, with regard to the portions of the amended complaint that were dismissed as a sham, the trial court erred by granting the dismissal without first conducting an evidentiary hearing as is required by Rule 1.150, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. However, because the order does not specify which portions of the amended complaint were dismissed as a sham, we reverse and remand the entire cause. On remand, the parties shall be entitled to a new hearing on the motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. If that motion is granted, in whole or in part, plaintiff is entitled to have leave to amend.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

706 So. 2d 959, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2681, 1998 WL 117400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/motyczka-v-hall-fladistctapp-1998.