Case Name: James L. LAW, Appellant, v. CITY OF ORMOND BEACH, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-02-20
Citations: 705 So. 2d 720
Docket Number: No. 97-0118
Parties: James L. LAW, Appellant, v. CITY OF ORMOND BEACH, Appellee.
Judges: HARRIS, PETERSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 705
Pages: 720–721

Head Matter:
James L. LAW, Appellant, v. CITY OF ORMOND BEACH, Appellee.
No. 97-0118.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Feb. 20, 1998.
James L. Law, Ormond Beach, pro se.
Fred S. Disselkoen, Jr., Ormond Beach, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James Law (Law) appeals the trial court's final order dismissing with prejudice his fourteen-count complaint against the City of Ormond Beach (City). The trial court determined that dismissal was required because all counts were barred by the four-year statute of limitations. § 95.11(3), Fla. Stat. (1995). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
All counts of Law's complaint, except counts VI and XIII, were properly dismissed based upon the application of the four-year statute of limitations. Counts VI and XIII should not have been dismissed because they contain allegations pertaining to actions on the part of the City occurring in 1992. As a result, these counts are not barred by the four-year statute of limitations. Accordingly, we must reverse the trial court's dismissal order as it pertains to counts VI and XIII. In closing, we note that our review of counts VI and XIII indicates that the allegations set forth therein fail to state a cognizable cause of action. Thus, on remand, the trial court should grant Law the opportunity to amend his complaint to state a cognizable cause of action. See Myers v. Myers, 652 So.2d 1214, 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
HARRIS, PETERSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.