Williams v. Gaffin Industrial Services, Inc.
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8398
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Lisa Williams, as personal representative of Robert Williams’ estate, appeals a dismissal with prejudice of her complaint against Gaf-fin Industrial Services, Inc.
- The trial court dismissed sua sponte on grounds of election of remedies and because amendment would have been futile, after considering materials outside the complaint.
- The complaint asserted two counts: Count I Intentional Harm under workers’ compensation, and Count II Non-Delegable Duty.
- Gaffin moved to dismiss with prejudice and for an emergency motion to dismiss, attaching documents outside the complaint to support election of remedies and sufficiency arguments.
- Williams argued four-corners rule barred dismissal and that she had an absolute right to amend once as a matter of course under Rule 1.190(a).
- The appellate court reversed, holding that dismissal based on election of remedies was improper since matters outside the complaint were considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court improperly grant dismissal with prejudice based on election of remedies? | Williams; four-corners rule prevents dismissal on unpleaded election arguments. | Gaffin; election of remedies bar applies and supported by attached documents. | No; reversal required due to outside-the-pleadings evidence and four-corners rule. |
| May a court rely on materials outside the complaint to support an affirmative defense on a motion to dismiss? | Williams; outside materials cannot support dismissal. | Gaffin; attachments demonstrate election of remedies. | No; dismissal improper where outside materials drive the decision. |
| Did Williams have an absolute right to amend once as to matter of course under Rule 1.190(a) before a responsive pleading? | Williams; rule granted right to amend once as matter of course. | Gaffin; argues discretion to deny amendment or futility. | Yes; Williams had an absolute right to amend once. |
| Was Boca Burger controlling to bar the trial court from denying amendment in this context? | Boca Burger supports absolute right to amend; trial court had no discretion to deny. | Boca Burger argued only when responsive pleading exists or after amendment rights exercised. | Held in favor of Williams; Boca Burger dictates right to amend cannot be denied here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Peak v. Outward Bound, Inc., 57 So.3d 997 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (de novo review of dismissal)
- Vause v. Bay Med. Ctr., 687 So.2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (election of remedies defense must appear on face of the complaint)
- Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So.2d 561 (Fla. 2005) (absolute right to amend once before a responsive pleading; no discretion to deny)
- Forum v. Boca Burger, Inc., 788 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (trial court discretion limits when amendment rights apply)