MARIO MORIKAWA v. NORBERTO CASTRO, 20-1785

Castro sued Morikawa for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and conversion after a commercial transaction.
Morikawa moved to dismiss, then filed a lengthy counterclaim; initially he filed a standalone counterclaim before filing a later hybrid pleading containing both an answer and a 306-paragraph counterclaim and crossclaim.
Castro moved to dismiss/strike the counterclaim on two grounds: (1) it was improperly filed as a standalone counterclaim without an answer; and (2) parts of the counterclaim contradicted an incorporated exhibit.
A successor judge denied default, then struck the counterclaim by a perfunctory order citing noncompliance with the Florida Rules and later dismissed the entire case.
On appeal, the court reviewed whether the motions Castro actually filed provided grounds for dismissal and whether dismissal of the entire counterclaim without notice or an opportunity to cure was permissible.
The appellate court affirmed dismissal of count one (the portion challenged as repugnant to the exhibit) but reversed dismissal of the remaining counts and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court could dismiss the counterclaim sua sponte without notice/opportunity to be heard	Castro argued noncompliance with Florida Rules justified striking/dismissing	Morikawa argued dismissal without notice denied due process and lacked proper basis	Court held dismissal of the entire counterclaim without affording notice/opportunity was improper; reversed dismissal of remaining counts
Whether a standalone counterclaim (filed without an answer) was improper	Castro argued the initial standalone counterclaim was impermissible	Morikawa argued any initial defect was cured by later hybrid pleading containing an answer and counterclaim	Court held the later hybrid pleading mooted the initial defect
Whether allegations in the counterclaim that contradict an incorporated exhibit must be dismissed	Castro argued count one was repugnant to an attached/incorporated document and should be dismissed	Morikawa disputed dismissal	Court affirmed dismissal of count one as contradicted by the exhibit
Whether trial court’s perfunctory striking/dismissal for procedural noncompliance justified dismissal of all counts	Castro relied on rules and alleged shotgun pleading/noncompliance	Morikawa emphasized lack of targeted motions, presence of an answer, and need for notice/opportunity to amend	Court found motions only targeted limited issues; striking all counts without notice was error and reversal was required for the remaining counts

Barile v. Gayheart, 80 So. 3d 1085 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (trial court may not dismiss sua sponte on grounds not pleaded without notice and opportunity to be heard)
Liton Lighting v. Platinum Television Grp., Inc., 2 So. 3d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (same due-process limitation on sua sponte dismissals)
Hancock v. Tipton, 732 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (orders adjudicating issues not presented by pleadings deny fundamental due process)
Sanchez v. LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 44 So. 3d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (trial court should not sua sponte strike a pleading as legally insufficient)
Benzrent 1, LLC v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB, 273 So. 3d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (trial court may revisit interlocutory orders before final judgment)
Ginsberg v. Lennar Fla. Holdings, Inc., 645 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (attached exhibits control where complaint allegations are contradicted by the exhibits)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Giesel, 155 So. 3d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (parties must be afforded notice and opportunity to correct pleading deficiencies)
Bernstein v. IDT Corp., 582 F. Supp. 1079 (D. Del. 1984) (counterclaims should be raised in a complaint or answer)
Cornell v. Chase Brass & Copper Co., 48 F. Supp. 979 (S.D.N.Y. 1943) (only an answer may contain a counterclaim)