JORGE MANZANO AND BRIAN FLAHERTY, APPELLANTS,
v.
FRANCO NICOLETTI AND FLORENCIA FERREIRA, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Incarcerated plaintiffs appealed dismissal of their breach of contract lawsuit. The appellate court reversed the dismissal, finding the trial court failed to follow proper procedural requirements when sua sponte dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action without notice and opportunity to respond.
A trial court may not sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action without first providing the plaintiffs notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond in writing. The dismissal was reversed, and the plaintiffs must be afforded the opportunity to respond to any such motion and, if possible, to be heard telephonically at any hearing.
[1] A trial court must provide notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond when sua sponte raising the legal sufficiency of a complaint.
[2] A dismissal for failure to state a cause of action, when raised sua sponte by the court, requires procedural safeguards including notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We accept the defendant's concession that where a trial court wishes sua sponte to raise the legal sufficiency of the complaint, the court must give the plaintiffs notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond.”
Establishes the procedural requirement violated by the trial court when dismissing the complaint sua sponte.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs Manzano and Flaherty, who are incarcerated, filed a lawsuit against defendants Nicoletti and Ferreira asserting breach of contract and othe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice And Opportunity To Respond cases and more on FLexlaw
Confession of Error Corrected Opinion
Jorge Manzano and Brian Flaherty appeal an order dismissing their lawsuit. On the confession of error filed by Franco ■Nicoletti, we reverse the dismissal order.
Plaintiffs Manzano and Flaherty are incarcerated in correctional institutions. They filed this lawsuit against defendants Nicoletti and Ferreira, asserting breach of contract and other claims. The plaintiffs filed a motion for an order allowing the plaintiffs to take the deposition of Ferreira by telephonic means. The motion was scheduled for hearing on September 23, 2008. The plaintiffs attempted to participate in the hearing by telephone but were unsuccessful in doing so.
Both sides agree that at the September '23 hearing, the trial court dismissed the lawsuit. The plaintiffs contend that this was because the plaintiffs were unable to appear by telephone at this hearing. Defendant Nicoletti maintains that the trial court examined the complaint and concluded that the complaint did not state a cause of action. The defendants had not filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
We are confident that the able trial judge did not impose the sanction of dismissal because the plaintiffs were unsuc- ■ cessful in appearing telephonically at a hearing on a procedural motion. As the defendant points out, the written order nowhere indicates that the dismissal was being imposed as a sanction. We accept the defendant’s characterization and treat this as a dismissal for failure to state a cause of action.
We accept the defendant’s concession that where a trial court wishes sua sponte to raise the legal sufficiency of the complaint, the court must give the plaintiffs notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond. Surat v. Nu-Med Pembroke, Inc., 632 So.2d 1136, 1136-38 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). The defendant acknowledges that the procedure outlined in Surat was not followed here, and accordingly we reverse the dismissal order. This ruling is without prejudice to the defendants to file a motion to dismiss, or the court to raise the issue on its own motion. The plaintiffs must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond in wilting, and if at all possible, should be afforded the right to be heard at the hearing telephonically.
*753For the stated reasons, the order now before us is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (28 total)
-
Abdel Oscar Delgado v. Arnei Morejon, 295 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…ee, e.g., Lawson v. Frank, 197 So. 3d 1269, 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (finding sua sponte dismissal of complaint violated due process when there was no hearing, objection, motion, or defense raised as to sufficiency of pleading); Manzano v. Nicoletti, 15 So. 3d 751, 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“[W]here a trial court wishes sua sponte to raise the legal sufficiency of the complaint, the court must give the plaintiffs notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond.” (citing Surat v. Nu-Med Pembroke, Inc., 632 So. 2d…
-
Jenkins v. M.F. (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)…ciency of the pleading). In this case, the Superintendent was denied due process when the trial court entered the dismissal orders without providing notice to any of the parties or an opportunity to be heard. See id.; see also Manzano v. Nicoletti, 15 So. 3d 751, 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“[W]here a trial court wishes sua sponte to raise the legal sufficiency of the complaint, the court must give the plaintiffs notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond.”); Lenoir v. Jones, 979 So. 2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 1st…
-
Jenkins v. C.D. (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)…ciency of the pleading). In this case, the Superintendent was denied due process when the trial court entered the dismissal orders without providing notice to any of the parties or an opportunity to be heard. See id.; see also Manzano v. Nicoletti, 15 So. 3d 751, 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“[W]here a trial court wishes sua sponte to raise the legal sufficiency of the complaint, the court must give the plaintiffs notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond.”); Lenoir v. Jones, 979 So. 2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 1st…
Previewing 3 of 28 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lurine Surat v. Nu-Med Pembroke, Inc., 632 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)