So that’s what ultimate facts are!

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 49, NUMBER 42

OCTOBER 18, 2024

TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PLEAD ULTIMATE FACTS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH UNDERLYING CAUSE OF ACTION – BECAUSE COMPLAINT CONTAINED SUFFICIENT ALLEGATIONS TO APPRISE THE DEFENDANTS OF THE NATURE OF THE PLAINTIFFS’ CAUSES OF ACTION, IT WASERROR FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO REQUIRE FURTHER SPECIFICITY AT THAT STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Poirier v. The Village’s Senior Housing Room Number 10 PC O, LLC, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D2033 (Fla. 5^th DCA Oct. 8, 2024):

A woman admitted into the defendant’s assisted living facility was placed in the memory care unit at some point thereafter. While in that unit, another resident who had a history of wandering around the facility entered the woman’s room. An altercation ensued which caused the woman to fall to the floor and hit her head. She died four days later from an intracranial hemorrhage.

The estate filed a lawsuit against the ALF and the individuals and entities responsible for its operation and management. They filed claims for non-lethal negligence, lethal negligence, wrongful death, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

The trial court granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint for failing to state ultimate facts entitling the estate to relief. The defendants filed three more motions to dismiss based on the alleged lack of specificity, and on the plaintiff setting forth “conclusions “rather than ultimate facts to support the claims.

The trial court ultimately granted the fourth motion to dismiss with prejudice. The court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to plead ultimate facts necessary to establish the underlying causes of action and the damages related thereto.

The appellate court reminded that the purpose of a motion to dismiss is not to evaluate factual disputes, but to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Because the legal sufficiency of the complaint is determined by its four corners, the trial court may not rely on facts adduced in depositions, affidavits, or other proofs when addressing motions to dismiss.

Florida is a fact-pleading jurisdiction. That means that a plaintiff must allege a short and plain statement of the ultimate facts to show that the pleader is entitled to relief.

Courts have elaborated that allegations can be made on three levels: (1) a description of the evidence itself; (2) a statement of ultimate facts; or (3) a conclusion of fact or law, and have explained that under rule 1.110(b)(2) the plaintiff should allege ultimate facts. This means it is not necessary to allege evidentiary facts, i.e., the exact events described by reference to exact dates, places or persons involved. However, it is insufficient to allege mere conclusions.

The purpose of a complaint is to advise the defendant of the nature of the cause of action asserted by the plaintiff. A complaint is merely a tentative outline of the position that the plaintiff takes before the case is fully developed. Where a complaint contains sufficient allegations to acquaint the defendant with the plaintiff’s charge of wrongdoing so that the defendant can intelligently answer the same, it is erroneous to dismiss the action on the ground that more specific allegations are required. This simplified pleading procedure is the primary intent of rule 1.110, which eliminated pleading technicalities.

The trial court erred in requiring so much specificity at this initial stage of the proceedings. As the complaint contained sufficient allegations to apprise the defendants of the nature of the causes of action against them, the trial court should not have dismissed the complaint, so the appellate court reversed.

DISMISSING A CASE SUA SPONTE WITH PREJUDICE WITHOUT PROPER NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER IMPOSING THAT SANCTION WAS ERROR

Weeks v. Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Co, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D2031 (Fla. 5^th DCA Oct. 8, 2024):

The trial court entered an order to appear remotely for a case management conference. The order warned that the plaintiffs had to appear for the hearing on the date specified to avoid having the case dismissed for lack of prosecution. Their attorney failed to appear at the scheduled conference, and a day later, the court dismissed the case with prejudice.

The plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the dismissal order and a supporting affidavit from their attorney, attesting that his failure to appear resulted from excusable neglect for failing to calendar the hearing. They also argued that the court had failed to make a required finding that their failure to appear was willful.

Before obtaining a ruling on the motion, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Subsequently, the trial court granted their motion to vacate for excusable neglect, but later vacated its previous order granting relief, finding that it was entered in error because the dismissal order from which the plaintiff sought relief was not a final judgment.

The plaintiffs raised three challenges to the dismissal order. First, they argued that the trial court failed to find their failure to appear was willful. The court acknowledged that the plaintiffs were undoubtedly correct but found that the argument was not properly preserved and did not amount to fundamental error.

Then the plaintiffs argued that the trial court violated their due process rights by failing to consider their motion to vacate. However, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to address plaintiffs’ motion once they filed the notice of appeal.

Finally, the plaintiffs asserted that the dismissal with prejudice violated their due process because the order to appear did not put them on notice that their case would be dismissed with prejudice if they failed to appear.

Although plaintiffs did not make that argument to the trial court, the court addressed the due process violation as a matter of fundamental error and reversed the dismissal with instructions for the court to reconsider the motion for relief from judgment.