UP Fieldgate US Investments-East Colonial, LLC v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc.

Full title: UP FIELDGATE US INVESTMENTS-EAST COLONIAL, LLC, Appellant, v. DICK'S…

Court: DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

Date published: Oct 11, 2019

Case No. 5D18-1525 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2019)

Opinion

Case No. 5D18-1525

10-11-2019

UP FIELDGATE US INVESTMENTS-EAST COLONIAL, LLC, Appellant, v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, Appellee.

Nicolette C. Vilmos and Linda Spaulding White, of Nelson Mullins Broad and Cassel, Orlando, for Appellant. Ronald D. Edwards, Jr. and James E. Walson, of Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A., Orlando, and Gregory D. Call, of Crowell Moring, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Appellee.

WALLIS, J.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Kevin B. Weiss, Judge. Nicolette C. Vilmos and Linda Spaulding White, of Nelson Mullins Broad and Cassel, Orlando, for Appellant. Ronald D. Edwards, Jr. and James E. Walson, of Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A., Orlando, and Gregory D. Call, of Crowell Moring, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Appellee. WALLIS, J.

UP Fieldgate US Investments-East Colonial, LLC (Landlord), appeals the final order dismissing its amended complaint against Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., with prejudice. Landlord argues that the trial court erred when it found that it did not sufficiently state a cause of action and when it dismissed its amended complaint with prejudice.

We affirm without discussion the trial court's finding that the amended complaint did not sufficiently state a cause of action. See Jordan v. Nienhuis, 203 So. 3d 974, 976 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) ("[G]eneral, vague and conclusory statements are insufficient to satisfy the requirement that a pleader allege 'a short and plain statement of the ultimate facts showing the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .'" (citing Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(b))). However, the trial court erred when it refused to permit Landlord to amend and dismissed the case with prejudice. See Crown v. Chase Home Fin., 41 So. 3d 978, 979-80 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) ("[A]ll doubts should be resolved in favor of allowing the amendment and refusal to do so generally constitutes an abuse of discretion unless it clearly appears that allowing the amendment would prejudice the opposing party, the privilege to amend has been abused, or amendment would be futile."). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Landlord's amended complaint but reverse its dismissal with prejudice. On remand, Landlord shall have an opportunity to amend.

AFFIRMED in Part; REVERSED in Part; and REMANDED for Further Proceedings. EVANDER, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.