Pompa v. Martinez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pompa v. Martinez

614 So. 2d 661, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2249, 1993 WL 48253

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 26, 1993

DocketNo. 92-00969

StatusPublished

This text of 614 So. 2d 661 (Pompa v. Martinez) 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

Pompa v. Martinez, 614 So. 2d 661, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2249, 1993 WL 48253 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

BLUE, Judge.

The plaintiffs, Rodrigo and Haydee Pom-pa, in this action for personal injury to their son, appeal the dismissal' of their amended complaint and the trial court’s final summary judgment for the defendant, Mildred Martinez. The procedural posture of this case requires reversal.

The trial court improperly granted motions to which pleadings were not directed. A third amended complaint was pending at the time of the hearing on the motions appealed. It was filed as a result of the parties’ stipulation. There was no motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. The motion for summary judgment was directed to the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. The third amended complaint alleged a different and distinct theory of liability from the second amended complaint. The trial court could not properly rule upon pleadings to which motions and argument were not directed. Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So.2d 334 (Fla.1957). We reverse and remand this case for further proceedings.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.

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

BLUE, Judge.

The plaintiffs, Rodrigo and Haydee Pom-pa, in this action for personal injury to their son, appeal the dismissal' of their amended complaint and the trial court’s final summary judgment for the defendant, Mildred Martinez. The procedural posture of this case requires reversal.

The trial court improperly granted motions to which pleadings were not directed. A third amended complaint was pending at the time of the hearing on the motions appealed. It was filed as a result of the parties’ stipulation. There was no motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. The motion for summary judgment was directed to the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. The third amended complaint alleged a different and distinct theory of liability from the second amended complaint. The trial court could not properly rule upon pleadings to which motions and argument were not directed. Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So.2d 334 (Fla.1957). We reverse and remand this case for further proceedings.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

614 So. 2d 661, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2249, 1993 WL 48253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pompa-v-martinez-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack