Rudloe v. Karl, 1D03-4651.
Decision Date | 07 April 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 1D03-4651.,1D03-4651. |
Citation | 899 So.2d 1161 |
Parties | Jack RUDLOE, Individually, and Gulf Specimen Company, Incorporated, a Florida Not for Profit Corporation, Appellants, v. Dr. David Michael KARL, Individually, and The Florida State University Board of Trustees, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
H. Richard Bisbee, Esquire and Patrick R. Frank, Esquire, Tallahassee, for Appellants.
Brian C. Keri, Esquire, Tallahassee, for Appellee Florida State University Board of Trustees and John S. Derr, Esquire, of the Derr Law Firm, Tallahassee, for Appellee Dr. David Michael Karl.
ON REHEARING
Jack Rudloe and Gulf Specimen Company, Inc. (Gulf Specimen), a biological supply service corporation of which Mr. Rudloe is president and with which he is "closely affiliated," appeal an order dismissing with prejudice the Florida State University Board of Trustees (FSU) from the libel action brought against FSU and David Michael Karl below. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(k). Substituting the following for the opinion issued November 5, 2004, we reverse.
On appeal, we consider anew the legal sufficiency, as to FSU, of the second amended complaint Mr. Rudloe and Gulf Specimen filed in circuit court. "Whether a complaint should be dismissed is a question of law." City of Gainesville v. State, Dep't of Transp., 778 So.2d 519, 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). "A trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss based on a question of law is subject to de novo review." Execu-Tech Bus. Sys., Inc. v. New Oji Paper Co., 752 So.2d 582, 584 (Fla.2000).
Originally Mr. Rudloe and Gulf Specimen filed suit only against Dr. Karl, the alumnus of Florida State University's Department of Oceanography who authored and submitted an account of "what it was like to be a student at the department," in response to the Oceanography Department's request for "students['] ... version[s] of departmental history during the time they were here." The original complaint, like its successors, alleged that Dr. Karl's account defamed Mr. Rudloe, a fellow alumnus, by insinuating that Mr. Rudloe had stolen a "priceless Neopilina specimen... from the lab [because the rare specimen] ... later show[ed] up for sale in Rudloe's Gulf Specimen Company catalog." Plaintiffs' first amended complaint, adding FSU as a defendant, alleged:
The first amended complaint alleged further that FSU negligently breached its duties
FSU filed a motion to dismiss addressed to the first amended complaint seeking dismissal as a party "on the basis of sovereign immunity." The trial court granted FSU's motion to dismiss, but gave appellants, plaintiffs below, an opportunity to file a second amended complaint.
In their second amended complaint, Mr. Rudloe and Gulf Specimen again alleged that FSU had negligently breached its duty to verify the facts in Dr. Karl's submission to the Oceanography Department, and specifically relied on Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Ane, 458 So.2d 239 (Fla.1984). But they abandoned their allegations that FSU, i.e., (an) FSU employee(s), had published Dr. Karl's version of departmental history "with evil motive and actual malice." The trial court dismissed the second amended complaint as to FSU with prejudice, anyway,2 and this appeal ensued.
778 So.2d at 522. "A reviewing court operates under the same constraints." Andrews v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 768 So.2d 1257, 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
Sovereign immunity is no bar to appellants' negligent defamation claim. "First, for there to be governmental tort liability, there must be either an underlying common law or statutory duty of care with respect to the alleged negligent conduct." Trianon Park Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 468 So.2d 912, 917 (Fla. 1985). Here, because of the common law duty publishers owe non-public figures, the second amended complaint adequately stated a claim for relief against FSU in alleging that FSU negligently published defamatory material about Mr. Rudloe and Gulf Specimen.3 See Ane, 458 So.2d at 242
(. )
We find no merit in FSU's highly problematic assertion that it enjoys blanket immunity for anything editors of its alumni publications say, write or allow to be published about FSU alumni. After all, our supreme court has said, "[s]ection 768.28...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Oken v. Williams, 1D08-3398.
...to take as admitted all allegations of the document (here an unrefuted affidavit) subject to the motion to dismiss. Rudloe v. Karl, 899 So.2d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Todd v. Johnson, 965 So.2d 255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). The trial judge applied this principle when denying Petitioners' motion......
-
De Vaux v. Westwood Baptist Church, 1D06-2666.
...to the allegations within the four corners of the complaint and the attachments incorporated into the complaint. Rudloe v. Karl, 899 So.2d 1161, 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Further, we are obligated to accept the allegations as true and consider them in a light most favorable to the non-movin......
-
Fla. Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Best Care Assurance, LLC
...a pure question of law is de novo."). "A trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss ... is subject to de novo review." Rudloe v. Karl , 899 So. 2d 1161, 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (quoting Execu-Tech Bus. Sys., Inc. v. New Oji Paper Co. Ltd. , 752 So. 2d 582, 584 (Fla. 2000) ). Likewise, "[s......
-
Ermini v. Scott, Case No: 2:15-cv-701-FtM-99CM
...doesPage 5 not allege malice in her Complaint. Since sovereign immunity does not bar a claim of negligent defamation, Rudloe v. Karl, 899 So. 2d 1161, 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), the motion to dismiss will be denied on this basis. Absolute Immunity/Privilege "As an executive officer the sheri......