Just the [basic] facts ma’am

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 50, NUMBER 32

CASES FROM THE WEEK OF AUGUST 15, 2025

ANOTHER CASE REMINDING US THAT A COMPLAINT IS A TENTATIVE OUTLINE—NOT A TREATISE FOR PLAINTIFFS TO SET FORTH ALL OF THEIR EVIDENCE AND THEORIES—INCONSISTENT PLEADING IS ALSO ALLOWED

Blanton v. The Arbor Facility Etc., 50 Fla. L. Weekly D1752 (Fla. 5th DCA Aug. 8, 2025):

After a nursing home resident died, her estate sued several defendants alleging they operated the nursing home at a high census, high acuity facility without providing commensurate staff. The estate alleged that the ongoing staffing shortage deprived the decedent of the care she needed.

The court dismissed multiple iterations of the complaint, each time finding it to be legally insufficient. Ultimately, the estate filed its fourth amended complaint, which the trial court also dismissed, this time with prejudice. The defendants had argued that the estate did not properly explain how they were eligible to be sued under the nursing home negligence statute or how their actions or omissions caused the decedent’s injuries.

The purpose of a complaint is to advise the court and the defendant of the nature of a cause of action asserted by the plaintiff. It is merely a tentative outline of the plaintiff’s position before the case is developed by discovery.

The plaintiff needs only to set forth a short and plain statement of the ultimate facts that show entitlement to relief. It is not necessary or even proper for the complaint to allege evidentiary facts. This simplified pleading procedure is the primary intent of Rule 1.110 which eliminated pleading technicalities.

In turn, the function of a motion to dismiss is to raise as a question of law the sufficiency of the facts alleged to state a cause of action. It is not a vehicle for resolving factual disputes. On the contrary, when ruling on the motion the court must assume all facts alleged in the complaint to be true. So long as the complaint introduces the defendant to the plaintiff’s charge of wrongdoing so that the defendant can intelligently answer the complaint, the court errs if it grants dismissal on the ground that more specific allegations are required. Applying these principles, the question is whether the complaint makes out a prima facie case for relief and enables the defendants to intelligently answer and defend themselves.

After accepting all the estate’s allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor, the court found that the estate had pleaded grounds for relief under the nursing home negligence statute, and the trial court erred by granting dismissal with prejudice.

SECTION 768.79 FLORIDA STATUTES DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THE COURT IS APPLYING ANOTHER STATE’S SUBSTANTIVE LAW

Diamond v. U.S. Bank, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D1733 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug. 6, 2025):

The estate sought attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 768.79 Florida statutes and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525. The trial court denied the motion because it found that Section 768.79 could not apply because another state’s substantive law applied to the underlying claims.

The estate argued that the trial judge erred in extending the governing authority from Southeast Floating Docks v. Auto-Owners, 82 So. 3d 73 (Fla. 2012), and argued that the case was limited to matters where the parties had contractually agreed to the substantive choice of law.

The appellate court affirmed. It found that Section 768.79 does not apply to entitle a party to attorneys’ fees in cases governed by the substantive law of another jurisdiction (in this case, Delaware law applied and rendered the estate victorious) irrespective of whether there is a choice of law clause or an analysis under the lex loci contractus doctrine.

TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S PLEADINGS AND DISMISSING HER COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE AS A SANCTION FOR REPEATED DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS AND DISREGARD FOR TRIAL COURT ORDERS – THE CHALLENGES TO THE TRIAL COURT’S KOZEL FINDINGS WERE NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL WHERE THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE KOZEL INQUIRY WAS NOT PROVIDED AND ARGUMENTS WERE NOT RAISED IN TIMELY FILED MOTION FOR A HEARING.

Green v. Mann, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D1734 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug. 6, 2025):

The plaintiff sued the defendants for various causes of action including fraud, conversion, tortious interference with a contractual right and advantageous relationship etc. The defendant counterclaimed contending that plaintiff stole and damaged his personal vehicles. After a series of the plaintiffs ignoring trial court orders (she ultimately appeared pro se). The trial court struck her pleadings, dismissed her complaint with prejudice, and entered a default on the defendant’s counterclaim against her, after conducting what the order stated was a full Kozel inquiry.

In affirming the trial court’s decision to impose the most severe of all sanctions, the court observed that the plaintiff and her then attorney delayed, delayed, withdrew and then delayed more, rather than engage in discovery of any kind. The trial court provided ample opportunity for the plaintiff to avoid dismissal, but after considering the Kozel factors, the court essentially declared enough was enough. A party filing suit must be willing to respond to discovery requests and case management orders. The plaintiff’s failure to do so indicated an unwillingness to play by the rules and supported dismissal of her amended complaint with prejudice.