Patterson v. McNeel, 97-00466
| Decision Date | 19 December 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-00466,97-00466 |
| Citation | 704 So.2d 1070 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D40 Victoria PATTERSON and Lawrence Patterson, Appellants/ Cross-Appellees, v. H. Brantley McNEEL, individually, and as Trustee of the assets of Downtown Medical and Diagnostic Center, P.A., a dissolved Florida corporation, d/b/a Downtown Medical & Diagnostic Center; David Allen Weiland, Jr., individually; and Downtown Medical and Diagnostic Center, P.A., a dissolved Florida corporation, d/b/a Downtown Medical & Diagnostic Center, Insurance Company, Appellees/ Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Horace Andrews, Judge.
Michael D.D. Geldart and Doreen Stone Young of Holland & Knight, LLP, St. Petersburg, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
Vance R. Dawson and Shari D. Castagnos of Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
Victoria Patterson and Lawrence Patterson appeal the trial court's order dismissing with prejudice their lawsuit against the Downtown Medical & Diagnostic Center, P.A. (the Center), and dismissing all counts except malicious prosecution against H. Brantley McNeel and David Allen Weiland, Jr. We reverse.
Mrs. Patterson was employed by the Center as a billing and collections supervisor. Drs. McNeel and Weiland are employed by or have some ownership interest in the Center. Allegedly, Mrs. Patterson was arrested and detained at St. Anthony's Hospital on March 30, 1993, under the provisions of the Baker Act on a petition initiated by the physicians and the Center.
Mrs. Patterson and her husband filed this action alleging claims of false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the Center and Drs. McNeel and Weiland, and alleging malicious prosecution solely against the two physicians. All defendants moved to dismiss the action on the ground of res judicata be cause the Center had obtained a judgment in a prior federal lawsuit filed by Mrs. Patterson. The trial court granted that motion and dismissed all claims against the Center and the claims of false arrest and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the physicians.
This record contains no pleadings from the federal action. The Center and the physicians filed a standard form "Judgment in a Civil Case" entered in the federal action that grants "the defendant's" motion for summary judgment, without further explanation. The form names the Center as the only defendant in that action. A reported opinion indicates that Mrs. Patterson and the Center were the only parties...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. State
..."illegal" and therefore was not "remediable under Rule 3.800(a) as long as the sentence is within the statutory maximum for the offense." 704 So.2d 1070. As in Carter, the defendant in Nathan alleged that his sentence of forty years as a habitual offender was illegal because his convictions......
-
Fla. Agency for Health Care Admin. v. McClain
...if circumstances suggest plaintiff could have pled matters to avoid statute of limitations defense); Patterson v. McNeel , 704 So.2d 1070, 1072 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) ("[A] motion to dismiss should not be granted on the basis of an affirmative defense ... unless that defense is established on t......
-
Brock v. Bowein
...on the basis of an affirmative defense ... unless that defense is established on the face of the pleadings.” Patterson v. McNeel, 704 So.2d 1070, 1072 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). “A motion to dismiss is not a substitute for a motion for summary judgment.” Al–Hakim, 787 So.2d at 941;see also Cowder ......