Nodal-Tarafa v. ARDC Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nodal-Tarafa v. ARDC Corp.

579 So. 2d 414, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5164, 1991 WL 87262

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 28, 1991

DocketNo. 90-2389

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 579 So. 2d 414 (Nodal-Tarafa v. ARDC Corp.) 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

Nodal-Tarafa v. ARDC Corp., 579 So. 2d 414, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5164, 1991 WL 87262 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final order which dismisses with prejudice the plaintiff Rodolfo Nodal-Tara-fa’s claim for tortious interference with an employment relationship as contained in his third amended complaint is affirmed upon a holding that after being given numerous opportunities to amend, the plaintiff was unable to state any operative facts in the amended complaint detailing the specific acts the defendant ARDC Corporation [ARDC] allegedly committed which caused the plaintiff to be discharged as a real estate salesman for Arvida Realty Sales, Inc. Only ultimate legal conclusions are stated therein and such allegations are patently insufficient to state a cause of action against the defendant ARDC, Clark v. Boeing Co., 395 So.2d 1226, 1229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(b).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The final order which dismisses with prejudice the plaintiff Rodolfo Nodal-Tara-fa’s claim for tortious interference with an employment relationship as contained in his third amended complaint is affirmed upon a holding that after being given numerous opportunities to amend, the plaintiff was unable to state any operative facts in the amended complaint detailing the specific acts the defendant ARDC Corporation [ARDC] allegedly committed which caused the plaintiff to be discharged as a real estate salesman for Arvida Realty Sales, Inc. Only ultimate legal conclusions are stated therein and such allegations are patently insufficient to state a cause of action against the defendant ARDC, Clark v. Boeing Co., 395 So.2d 1226, 1229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(b).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

579 So. 2d 414, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 5164, 1991 WL 87262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nodal-tarafa-v-ardc-corp-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack