Case Name: The ORLANDO UTILITIES COMMISSION et al., Appellants, v. ROSALIND HOLDING COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, a member of and representative of a class composed of all persons who are consumers of service including sewer, water and electricity furnished by the Orlando Utilities Commission, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1976-03-19
Citations: 330 So. 2d 56
Docket Number: No. 75-1211
Parties: The ORLANDO UTILITIES COMMISSION et al., Appellants, v. ROSALIND HOLDING COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, a member of and representative of a class composed of all persons who are consumers of service including sewer, water and electricity furnished by the Orlando Utilities Commission, Appellees.
Judges: WALDEN, C. J., DOWNEY, J., and ANDREWS, JOHN S., Associate Judge, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 330
Pages: 56–57

Head Matter:
The ORLANDO UTILITIES COMMISSION et al., Appellants, v. ROSALIND HOLDING COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, a member of and representative of a class composed of all persons who are consumers of service including sewer, water and electricity furnished by the Orlando Utilities Commission, Appellees.
No. 75-1211.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
March 19, 1976.
Rehearing Denied April 26, 1976.
Thomas B. Tart, of Gurney, Gurney & Handley, P. A., Orlando, for appellant Orlando Utilities Commission.
Robert L. Hamilton, Asst. City Atty., Orlando, for appellant City of Orlando.
Richard W. Bates, of Richard W. Bates, P. A., Orlando, and Mateer & Harbert, County Attys., for appellant Orange County.
Charles E. Davis and Stephen P. Kanar, of Fishback, Davis, Dominick & Simonet, Orlando, for appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an interlocutory appeal from (1) an order denying the defendant-appellants' motion to (a) dismiss appellee's amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and (b) strike various portions of that complaint and (2) an order denying defendant Orange County's motion for severance.
Appellee's amended complaint (which sought equitable relief), among other things, alleged that defendant Orlando Utilities Commission is charging all its consumers (including appellee) unreasonable rates. This allegation is sufficient to withstand appellants' motions to dismiss and to strike. We therefore affirm the first order on authority of the cases set forth at 10 Fla.Jur., Dismissal, etc., § 33, p. 544, note 42.
Appellant Orange County has not demonstrated any abuse of discretion in the court's ruling on its motion for severance. We therefore affirm the second order. See Compania Dominicana de Aviacion v. Knapp, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 18, 19.
AFFIRMED.
WALDEN, C. J., DOWNEY, J., and ANDREWS, JOHN S., Associate Judge, concur.