Kreizinger v. Schlesinger
| Citation | 925 So.2d 431 |
| Decision Date | 05 April 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D04-2919.,4D04-2919. |
| Parties | Loreen I. KREIZINGER, P.A., a Florida Professional Association, Appellant, v. Sheldon J. SCHLESINGER, P.A., a Florida Professional Association, and Scott Schlesinger, individually, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Loreen I. Kreizinger and Justine S. Anagnos of Loreen I. Kreizinger, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Sheldon J. Schlesinger and John J. Uustal of Sheldon J. Schlesinger, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Edna L. Caruso and Diran V. Seropian of Edna L. Caruso, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellees.
A lawyer, Loreen Kreizinger, appeals the dismissal of her complaint alleging tortious interference by appellee law firm with Kreizinger's contract with her client. Specifically, she claims that the purchase of a plane ticket for the client to meet with the new lawyer at his office before the client terminated the contract with Kreizinger amounted to tortious interference. Because the complaint alleged that the client contacted appellee law firm first, we conclude that it fails to state a cause of action for tortious interference. We affirm the dismissal of the complaint.
The complaint alleges that Patricia Gates engaged Loreen Kreizinger to represent her and her daughter in a medical malpractice action. After five years of Kreizinger's representation, and on the eve of docket call for the trial of the case, Gates contacted Scott Schlesinger and the Sheldon J. Schlesinger, P.A., law firm. Gates made Schlesinger aware of Kreizinger's representation of her, the pending lawsuit, and the impending trial date. The next day Schlesinger arranged and paid for Gates to fly to Fort Lauderdale from her home in Pensacola, Florida, for the purposes of discussing representation. On that date, Gates terminated the employment of Kreizinger and entered into a contract with Sheldon J. Schlesinger, P.A. to represent Gates and her daughter in the medical malpractice case. The case settled about two months later for a substantial sum.
Kreizinger filed suit against the Schlesinger law firm and Scott Schlesinger alleging tortious interference with her contract with Gates. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint arguing that because the attorney-client relationship is an "at will" contract, there could be no tortious interference with the contract. The trial court granted the motion, finding no intentional and unjustified interference with the attorney-client relationship by the attorney. Kreizinger appeals and argues that Schlesinger's purchase of the plane ticket constituted an act of intentional and unjustified interference.
The standard of review of orders granting motions to dismiss with prejudice is de novo. MEBA Med. & Benefits Plan v. Lago, 867 So.2d 1184, 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). "In order to state a cause of action, a complaint must allege sufficient ultimate facts to show that the pleader is entitled to relief." Id. A court may not go beyond the four corners of the complaint and must accept the facts alleged therein as true. Samuels v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale, 782 So.2d 489, 494 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
A party seeking redress pursuant to a claim for tortious interference with a business relationship must show: 1) the existence of a business relationship, not necessarily evidenced by an enforceable contract; 2) knowledge of the relationship on the part of the defendant; 3) an intentional and unjustified interference with the relationship; and 4) damage to the plaintiff as a result of the tortious interference with the relationship. ISS Cleaning Servs. Group, Inc. v. Cosby, 745 So.2d 460, 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). In this case, the trial court found that the complaint failed to allege any ultimate facts constituting the third element of the cause of action, namely the intentional and unjustified interference with the business relationship.
Kreizinger's complaint alleges that Gates, her client, contacted Schlesinger. Therefore, it was Gates that sought out Schlesinger. Schlesinger then arranged to fly Gates and her daughter to his office in Fort Lauderdale, paying for their tickets. On the same day that she came to Fort Lauderdale, Gates discharged Kreizinger and entered into a contract with Schlesinger for representation in the pending malpractice lawsuit.
The lawyer-client relationship is an "at will" contract because a client has a right to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boldstar Technical, LLC v. Home Depot, Inc.
...284, 286 (Fla.3d Dist.Ct.App.2006); Walters v. Blankenship, 931 So.2d 137, 139 (Fla. 5th Dist.Ct. Ap.2006); Kreizinger v. Schlesinger, 925 So.2d 431, 433 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.2006). The business relationship, if not an actual contract, must be "evidenced by an actual and identifiable under......
-
Preudhomme v. Bailey
...granting motions to dismiss with prejudice is de novo ." Garnac Grain Co., Inc. v. Mejia , 962 So.2d 408, 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting Kreizinger, P.A. v. Schlesinger, P.A. , 925 So.2d 431, 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) ). Our analysis in this case is confined to review of the four corners of......
-
Rhodes v. Turner
...n. 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Whether a complaint states a cause of action is an issue of law, reviewed de novo. Kreizinger v. Schlesinger, 925 So.2d 431, 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). “On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a ......
-
Diplomat Props. Ltd. P'ship v. Tecnoglass, LLC
...We apply a de novo standard of review to a final order of dismissal for failure to state a cause of action. Kreizinger v. Schlesinger, 925 So.2d 431, 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). A court may not go beyond the four corners of the complaint and must accept the facts alleged therein as true. Id. a......
-
Business & commercial cases
...v. J. Rolfe Davis, Inc., 245 So.2d 278, 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), cert. denied, 249 So.2d 36 (Fla. 1971). 11. Kreizinger v. Schlesinger , 925 So.2d 431, 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). 12. Palm Beach County Health Care Dist. v. Prof’l Med. Educ. , 13 So.3d 1090, 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). 13. Volvo ......
-
Client Responsibility for Lawyer Conduct: Examining the Agency Nature of the Lawyer-client Relationship
...confidence, such that a client should not be forced to rely on a lawyer if he no longer wishes to do so."); Kreizinger v. Schlesinger, 925 So. 2d 431, 433 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) ("The lawyerclient relationship is an `at will' contract because a client has a right to discharge a lawyer a......