Case ID: so2d_351/html/1059-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Clark COLLINS, Appellant, v. Jon E. KRUPNICK et al., Appellees.
    No. 76-380.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    May 6, 1977.
    Rehearing Denied July 15, 1977.
    Eugene E. Stearns of Pettigrew, Arky, Freed, Stearns, Watson & Greer, Miami, for appellant.
    Paul R. Regensdorf and William D. Rick-er, Jr., of Fleming, O’Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals an order dismissing with prejudice his second amended complaint. We have reviewed the dismissed complaint and considered the arguments of counsel. We conclude that plaintiff’s allegations state a cause of action for libel and slander (per se and per quod). Of course, we do not at this time determine the merits of plaintiff’s allegations, or whether there are affirmative defenses available to the defendants which might defeat plaintiff’s claim.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

DOWNEY and ALDERMAN, JJ., and PARHAM, HARRY C., Associate Judge, concur.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Appellees point out that, although the trial court at one time granted appellant permission to file a second amended complaint, it subsequently granted appellees’ motion for reconsideration, which asked the trial court to withdraw that permission and to dismiss the first amended complaint. Technically, what the trial court did was to dismiss the first amended complaint with prejudice, without leave to amend. Upon remand the second amended complaint should be reinstated.

Rehearing denied.

DOWNEY and ALDERMAN, JJ., and PARHAM, HARRY C., Associate Judge, concur.