Professional Negligence Law Reporter

A Florida appellate court held that a trial court had erred in granting a motion to dismiss based on a limitations defense relying on facts not contained in the plaintiffs’ complaint or its attachments.

Here, John and Lisa Enlow brought a legal negligence suit against E.C. Scott Wright, P.A., and Moletteire Injury law, P.A. The defense moved to dismiss on limitations grounds, and the trial court granted the motion, relying on facts that were not mentioned in the plaintiffs’ complaint or its attachments.

Reversing, the appellate court found that a court is strictly confined to the “four corners” of the complaint and its attachments when considering a motion to dismiss. The court added that a motion to dismiss is not one for summary judgment and, therefore, a trial court may not rely on depositions, affidavits, or other forms of evidence in deciding whether a plaintiff’s allegations are provable. Citing case law, the court also found that attaching documents to a motion to dismiss does not allow them to be considered by the court deciding the motion.

Applying these principles here, the court noted that the plaintiffs’ cause of action accrued on the dismissal date of the Enlows’ appeal. This date was not included in the plaintiffs’ complaint or its attachments, the court said, nor was it incorporated by reference. Consequently, the court found that the trial court had improperly relied on the date, which was included in an attachment to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Accordingly, granting the motion had been improper.

Citation: Enlow v. E.C. Scott Wright, P.A., 2019 WL 2477963 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. June 14, 2019).

Plaintiff counsel: Elliott Kula, W. Aaron Daniel, and William Mueller, all of Miami.