From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nodal-Tarafa v. ARDC Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
May 28, 1991
579 So. 2d 414 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Opinion

No. 90-2389.

May 28, 1991.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court of Dade County; Philip Cook, Judge.

Guillermo F. Mascaro, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Cadwalader, Wickersham Taft, James W. Beasley, Jr. and Steven M. Katzman, Palm Beach, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, BASKIN and COPE, JJ.


The final order which dismisses with prejudice the plaintiff Rodolfo Nodal-Tarafa's claim for tortious interference with an employment relationship as contained in his third amended complaint is affirmed upon a holding that after being given numerous opportunities to amend, the plaintiff was unable to state any operative facts in the amended complaint detailing the specific acts the defendant ARDC Corporation [ARDC] allegedly committed which caused the plaintiff to be discharged as a real estate salesman for Arvida Realty Sales, Inc. Only ultimate legal conclusions are stated therein and such allegations are patently insufficient to state a cause of action against the defendant ARDC, Clark v. Boeing Co., 395 So.2d 1226, 1229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(b).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Nodal-Tarafa v. ARDC Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
May 28, 1991
579 So. 2d 414 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
Case details for

Nodal-Tarafa v. ARDC Corp.

Case Details

Full title:RODOLFO NODAL-TARAFA, APPELLANT, v. ARDC CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: May 28, 1991

Citations

579 So. 2d 414 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Citing Cases

Gonzalez v. State

Affirmed. See §§ 768.28(6)(a) and (b), Fla. Stat. (2017) (providing that pre-suit notice is a condition…

Gonzalez v. State

Affirmed. See §§ 768.28(6)(a) and (b), Fla. Stat. (2017) (providing that pre-suit notice is a condition…