Wildflower, LLC v. St. Johns River Water Management District
179 So. 3d 369
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Wüdflower, LLC (Appellant) acquired the disputed property in 2013; its only identified members are Frank and Linda Molica. The Molicas had previously been involved in lengthy administrative and judicial proceedings with St. Johns River Water Management District (Appellee) dating from 2008–2013 concerning permit and jurisdiction issues on the same property.
- In 2014 Wüdflower sued the District for a declaratory judgment about whether its activities required District permits. The District moved to dismiss, asserting res judicata and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- Wüdflower filed amended complaints; the District labeled some earlier allegations (that Wüdflower had requested administrative action) a sham and filed an affidavit from the district clerk denying receipt of such a request. The allegedly false allegation was removed from the second amended complaint.
- The District moved to strike the second amended complaint as a sham and moved to dismiss with prejudice on grounds including res judicata and lack of standing. Wüdflower moved for a default judgment, claiming the District’s motions did not toll its obligation to answer.
- The trial court struck and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice and denied the default motion. Wüdflower appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second amended complaint could be struck as a sham pleading | Wüdflower: complaint is not false; second amended complaint removed any allegedly false allegation | District: litigation is a sham because Wüdflower is controlled by the Molicas and re-litigates previously decided issues | Court: Reversed — strike was improper because District did not show any allegation in the second amended complaint was false |
| Whether the second amended complaint could be dismissed for lack of standing | Wüdflower: alleges ownership and that it conducts the activities at issue, so it has standing | District: Wüdflower lacks standing as its claims are derivative or in privity with Molicas | Court: Reversed — standing not defeated on face of complaint |
| Whether the complaint could be dismissed under res judicata on a motion to dismiss | Wüdflower: prior proceedings do not conclusively establish all res judicata elements against Wüdflower | District: prior judgments involving the Molicas and same property bar relitigation; Wüdflower is in privity with the Molicas | Court: Reversed — res judicata and privity are factual issues not established on the complaint’s face; dismissal with prejudice was improper |
| Whether a default should have been entered against the District | Wüdflower: District’s motions did not toll the time to answer, so default warranted | District: timely appeared and filed motions addressing the complaints and defended the action | Court: Affirmed — District timely appeared and actively defended; default not appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Stubbs v. Plantation Gen. Hosp. Ltd. P’ship, 988 So.2d 683 (general de novo standard for dismissal with prejudice)
- Orange Cty. v. Expedia, Inc., 985 So.2d 622 (abuse of discretion standard for dismissal in declaratory judgment actions)
- Rosenhouse v. 1950 Spring Term Grand Jury, 56 So.2d 445 (test for sufficiency in declaratory judgment actions)
- Cromer v. Mullally, 861 So.2d 523 (definition and hearing purpose for striking sham pleadings)
- Yunger v. Oliver, 803 So.2d 884 (pleading must be reinstated absent showing the pleading is plain fiction or undoubtedly false)
- Duncan v. Prudential Ins. Co., 690 So.2d 687 (affirmative defenses ordinarily cannot be raised by motion to dismiss)
- AMEC Civil, LLC v. PTG Constr. Servs. Co., 106 So.3d 455 (elements and effect of res judicata and privity)