Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum
912 So. 2d 561, 2005 WL 1574249 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a), a plaintiff has an absolute right to amend a complaint once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served, and a trial court has no discretion to deny such an amendment.
Facts:
- Richard Forum filed a lawsuit against Boca Burger, Inc. under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA).
- The lawsuit stemmed from Forum's allegations that Boca Burger made intentional and negligent misrepresentations and omissions concerning the nature and ingredients of its purportedly 'all natural' vegetarian hamburger patty substitute.
- Forum specifically accused Boca Burger of omitting certain ingredients from the product's label.
- Before Boca Burger served a responsive pleading (an answer), Forum's new counsel filed an amended complaint.
- The amended complaint expanded the lawsuit to include multiple claims for relief, including both statutory and common law violations, based on the same alleged misrepresentations.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Forum sued Boca Burger, Inc. in a Florida trial court (circuit court).
- Boca Burger filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
- On the morning of the hearing on the motion, Forum filed an amended complaint without leave of court.
- The trial court refused to recognize the amended complaint and granted Boca Burger's motion, dismissing the original complaint with prejudice.
- Forum (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court).
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal and imposed sanctions on Boca Burger (appellee) and its counsel.
- Boca Burger (petitioner) sought review in the Supreme Court of Florida, which granted review based on an express and direct conflict with a decision from another appellate district.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court have discretion to deny a plaintiff's first amendment to a complaint when it is filed before a responsive pleading is served?
Opinions:
Majority - Cantero, J.
No. A plaintiff has an absolute right to amend a complaint once as a matter of course before a responsive pleading is served, and a trial court lacks discretion to deny it. The plain language of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a) states a party 'may amend a pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.' A motion to dismiss is not a 'responsive pleading' under the rules, so the filing of such a motion does not terminate this right. The court's discretion to deny an amendment only arises after a responsive pleading has been served or after the plaintiff has already amended once. The court also held that an affirmative defense like federal preemption may be raised in a motion to dismiss, and that while appellate courts can sanction appellees for frivolously defending an erroneous order, they cannot impose sanctions for conduct that occurred in the trial court.
Dissenting - Lewis, J.
The majority oversimplifies the trial court proceedings and should not remand for consideration of sanctions. The trial court's refusal to recognize the amended complaint was based on multiple procedural defects under the Rules of Judicial Administration, such as the improper appearance of new counsel, not just the amendment rule. The core substantive issue decided by the trial judge was that the plaintiff's claim was preempted by law and could never be amended to state a valid cause of action. Given that the district court was incorrect on the preemption issue, and there was conflicting case law on the amendment issue (Volpicella), it is unjust to punish counsel for defending the trial court's order. Remanding for sanctions under these complex circumstances is flawed and chills zealous advocacy.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a plaintiff's absolute right to one pre-answer amendment in Florida, eliminating any 'residual discretion' that trial courts might have claimed under prior, conflicting case law like Volpicella. The ruling provides clear procedural guidance, ensuring plaintiffs have an unimpeded opportunity to cure defects in their initial complaint. The opinion also offers important clarifications on two other procedural matters: it affirms the efficiency of raising preemption defenses via a motion to dismiss and carefully delineates the sanctioning authority of trial versus appellate courts, reinforcing the trial court's primary role in policing conduct that occurs before it.
