Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry Cnty.
426 S.C. 175
| S.C. | 2019Background
- Skydive Myrtle Beach operated at Grand Strand Airport under a lease; disputes arose after control shifted to Horry County/Dept. of Airports and temporary leases were imposed.
- Skydive sued the County, the Department, and four individual employees (Haldi, Apone, Jackson, Teal) alleging conspiracy, fraud, defamation, retaliatory eviction, and interference with business.
- The individually named employees moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting immunity under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act for acts within the scope of official duties.
- The circuit court granted the 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed Skydive's claims against the individuals with prejudice, without addressing Skydive’s written requests for leave to amend.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed; the South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether dismissal with prejudice was proper without considering leave to amend.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the trial court erred by not allowing Skydive an opportunity to amend because amendment was not clearly futile on the limited record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) can be entered with prejudice without ruling on leave to amend | Skydive: court must allow amendment under Rule 15(a) before final dismissal; it twice requested leave to amend | Respondents: paragraph alleging agency shows actions were within official duties and thus immune under Tort Claims Act | Court: Trial court abused discretion; must consider Rule 15(a) and generally allow amendment unless clearly futile; reversal and remand for opportunity to amend |
| Whether immunity under S.C. Tort Claims Act bars all claims against the individuals | Skydive: pleaded facts (actual malice, intent to harm, fraud, acts outside scope) that fall within statutory exceptions to immunity | Respondents: paragraph 8 alleges they acted as agents, so subsection (a) immunity applies | Court: On face of complaint, exceptions plausibly alleged; immunity not conclusively established; amendment might cure pleading defects |
| Whether pleading alternative or inconsistent theories (acts inside and outside scope) is permissible | Skydive: may plead alternative theories (some acts within duty, some outside) | Respondents: such conflicting theories are inequitable and justify dismissal | Court: Alternative/inconsistent pleadings are allowed under Rule 8; not a basis to deny amendment |
| Whether any proposed amendment would be clearly futile such that no remand is required | Skydive: proposed factual allegations could overcome immunity (fraud, malice, intent to harm, conduct outside scope) | Respondents: argued futility because complaint alleges agency and thus immunity | Court: Could not conclude amendment would be clearly futile on record; remand required for opportunity to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend should be freely given absent valid reason)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (well‑pleaded claims survive dismissal even if recovery appears unlikely)
- Dockside Ass'n, Inc. v. Detyens, Simmons & Carlisle, 297 S.C. 91 (Ct. App. 1988) (plaintiff should be given leave to amend before dismissal under Rule 12)
- Spence v. Spence, 368 S.C. 106 (2006) (appellate court must remand for amendment unless proposed amendment is clearly futile)
- Patton v. Miller, 420 S.C. 471 (2017) (Rule 15(a) strongly favors amendments; court should assess prejudice before denying leave)