Holley v. Innovative Tech. of Destin, Inc.
Decision Date | 17 October 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 1D00-2222.,1D00-2222. |
Citation | 803 So.2d 749 |
Parties | Cheryl HOLLEY, Appellant, v. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY OF DESTIN, INC., a Florida corporation, Travis Sanders, individually, Dennis Wilfong, individually, and Richard Stevens, individually, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Clifton C. Curry, Jr., and Frank J. Nivert of Curry & Associates, P.A., Brandon, Attorneys for Appellant.
Kathy J. Maus and Eric E. Hartwell of Butler Burnette Pappas, Tallahassee, Attorneys
for Appellees Innovative Technology of Destin, Inc., Travis Sanders, and Richard Stevens.
Matthew W. Burns, Destin, Attorney for Appellee Richard Stevens.
Thomas S. Hogan, Jr., of The Hogan Law Firm, Brooksville, Attorney for Appellee Dennis Wilfong.
Appellant filed suit against Appellees, her employer and three individuals alleging false imprisonment (count 2), assault and battery (count 3), and violation of section 448.102, Florida Statutes (count 7) ("Whistleblower's Act").1 Appellees moved to dismiss numerous counts of the second amended complaint, including count 7, and Appellees Innovative Technology, Sanders, and Stevens moved for judgment on the pleadings as to count 7. The trial court dismissed count 7 with prejudice and entered judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the claim was untimely filed, stated a new cause of action, and did not relate back to the filing of the original complaint.2
rev. dismissed sub nom. Ford Motor Co. v. R.A. Jones & Sons, Inc., 482 So.2d 348 (Fla.1986)).
The Whistleblower's claim is virtually identical to a count of the original verified complaint. "[A]n amendment which merely makes more specific what has already been alleged generally, or which changes the legal theory of the action, will relate back even though the statute of limitations has run in the interim." Kiehl v. Brown, 546 So.2d 18, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (citing Keel v. Brown, 162 So.2d 321, 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964),cert. denied,166 So.2d 753 (Fla.1964) (quoting J. Moore, A. Vestal & P. Kurland, Moore's Manual Federal Practice & Procedure § 9.09[9] (2d ed.1988))), rev. denied, 557 So.2d 35 (Fla.1990). Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing count 7 and granting judgment on the pleadings as to this count.
Additionally, the trial court granted Appellees' motions for summary judgment as to counts 2 and 3. Review of the evidence in the light most favorable to Appellant reveals genuine issues of material fact, which must be resolved by a jury. We reverse the trial court's orders granting summary judgment as to the assault and battery and false imprisonment counts. We affirm as to the remaining issues.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND for the trial court to reinstate counts 2, 3, and 7 of the second amended complaint.
I would affirm summary judgment on count two, which alleged false imprisonment during a car ride, because the plaintiff admittedly got in the car voluntarily and disembarked at her destination...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Herrera v. Jarden Corp.
...theory of the action, will relate back even though the statute of limitations has run in the interim." Holley v. Innovative Tech. of Destin, Inc. , 803 So. 2d 749, 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (quoting Kiehl v. Brown , 546 So. 2d 18, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) ). "The relation back doctrine should be......
-
Dausman v. Hart, 2D04-3521.
...theory of the action, will relate back even though the statute of limitations has run in the interim.'" Holley v. Innovative Tech. of Destin, Inc., 803 So.2d 749, 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (quoting Kiehl v. Brown, 546 So.2d 18, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)). See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(c) ("Relation b......
-
Sealy v. Perdido Key Oyster Bar & Marina, LLC
...party opposing the motion, and treat as false all allegations of the movant that were denied. See Holley v. Innovative Tech. of Destin, Inc., 803 So.2d 749, 750 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); accord Cuccarini v. Rosenfeld, 76 So.3d 328, 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). Although Appellant denied Appellee'......
-
Leavitt Communications v. Quality Com.
...754 So.2d 671 (Fla.2000). This is true even when the statute of limitation has run in the interim. See Holley v. Innovative Tech. of Destin, Inc., 803 So.2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Thus, when considering an amended complaint, it is incumbent upon a trial court, before dismissing a claim as......