MONROE DANIELS ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
NATIONAL BRANDS TIRE CO., INC., D/B/A NATIONAL TIRE STORES AND DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of a class action complaint. The trial court found the complaint lacked a sufficient basis for a class action and gave the plaintiffs leave to amend, which they failed to do adequately. The appellate court upheld the dismissal, adhering to established precedent.
No, the trial court did not err in dismissing the class action complaint. The appellate court declined to depart from established precedent regarding the requirements for class actions.
[1] A complaint must allege a sufficient basis for a class action to proceed.
[2] A trial court may dismiss a complaint for failure to allege a sufficient basis for a class action, with leave to amend.
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“the complaint did not allege a sufficient basis for a class action.”
This quote explains the trial court's initial reason for dismissing the complaint.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants filed a class action lawsuit, which the trial court dismissed, finding it lacked a sufficient basis. The court granted leave to amend. The …
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 Class Action Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants brought what they deemed to be a class action alleging that they sued on behalf of themselves and “all others similarly situated.” The trial court, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in Osceola Groves v. Wiley, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 700, and the decision of this court in Wilson v. First National Bank of Miami Springs, Fla.App.1971, 254 So.2d 362, dismissed the complaint with leave to amend upon a finding that the complaint did not allege a sufficient basis for a class action. The order of dismissal clearly recited the aforementioned basis therefore and stated that the defendant’s motion to dismiss “is hereby granted without prejudice to one of the plaintiffs in said cause to file an amended complaint . . .”. Thereafter, the plaintiffs declined to follow the court’s directions and filed an amended complaint almost identical to the first complaint. Thereupon, upon motion of the defendant-appellee, the court entered a final order dismissing the complaint but with the provision that, “It is not the intent of the Court in this order to preclude any of the plaintiffs from proceeding by separate action against the above mentioned defendant for damages provided each plaintiff alleges an amount of damages of which this Court can take jurisdiction.” The plaintiffs as appellants bring this appeal from that order. We affirm.
*449The essence of appellants’ scholarly brief is that, “[T]he later rulings of the Osceola Groves case and the Wilson case indicate a stricture of the Court’s view concerning applicability of class actions, with no clear explanation of the Court’s apparent narrowing of its view concerning class action propriety at later times.” In other words, appellant concedes that the holding of the trial court is in accord with the law as established and urges that we depart therefrom. This we respectfully decline to do upon the basis of the reasons set forth in Wilson v. First National Bank of Miami Springs, supra.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frankel v. City OF Miami Beach, 340 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1976)…fer and Storage Co. v. Overstreet, 254 So. 2d 855 (Fla.App.3d 1971) (citing Osceola Groves), Curtis Publishing Co. v. Bader, 266 So. 2d 78 (Fla.App.3d 1972) (citing Wilson which relied upon Osceola Groves); Daniels v. National Brands Tire Co., Inc., 270 So. 2d 448 (Fla.App.3d 1972) (citing Osceola Groves and Wilson); Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Pasco, 275 So. 2d 46 (Fla.App.3d 1973) (citing Osceola Groves; Wilson and Daniels); Watnick v. Florida Commercial Banks, Inc., 275 So. 2d 278 (Fla. App.3d 197…
-
Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Pasco, 275 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…these actions. Osceola Groves, Inc. v. Wiley, supra; City of Lakeland v. Chase Nat. Co., supra; Tenney v. City of Miami Beach, supra; Wilson v. First National Bank of Miami Springs, supra. See Daniels v. National Brands Tire Co., Inc., Fla.App.1972, 270 So. 2d 448; Society Milion Athena, Inc. v. National Bank of Greece, 281 N.Y. 282, 22 N.E. 2d 374 (1939). We turn now to the second question presented: Is the ''previous balance” method of computing finance charges on “revolving charge accounts” permitted by F…
Authorities Cited
- Edelblut v. Grady, 78 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1955)
- Osceola Groves, Inc. v. Wiley, 78 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1955)
- Wilson v. First Nat'l Bank OF Miami Springs, 254 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)