Court Opinion

ID: 9374007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:13:26.290814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:44.144993
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                       Opinion filed February 22, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
                             ________________

                             No. 3D22-1164
                     Lower Tribunal No. 21-11597 CC
                           ________________

       Lion Intelligence & Security Services, Inc., et al.,
                                 Appellants,

                                     vs.

                      Quicksilver Capital, LLC,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Natalie
Moore, Judge.

     Metschlaw, P.A., and Lawrence R. Metsch (Hollywood), for appellants.

     No appearance for appellee. 1

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and HENDON and GORDO, JJ.

     GORDO, J.

1
 Appellee was precluded from filing an answer brief after failing to heed this
Court’s order directing them to file same within a specified period of time.
      Lion Intelligence & Security Services, Inc. (“Lion”) and Wancito

Francius (“Francius”) appeal the trial court’s order granting Quicksilver

Capital, LLC’s (“Quicksilver”) motion to dismiss with prejudice. We have

jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). The sole issue here is whether

the trial court had an obligation to conduct an evidentiary hearing on

Quicksilver’s motion to dismiss. Finding no error in the dismissal, we affirm.

See Skupin v. Hemisphere Media Grp., Inc., 314 So. 3d 353, 357 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2020) (“[A]s everything the trial court needed to make its determination

as a matter of law was in the complaint or incorporated into it, the trial court

correctly dismissed the complaint with prejudice.”); Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v.

Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105 (Fla. 2001) (“[R]es judicata bars relitigation in

a subsequent cause of action not only of claims raised, but also claims that

could have been raised.”); Nieves v. Viera, 150 So. 3d 1236, 1238 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2014) (“[T]here is no automatic requirement that there be an evidentiary

hearing on pre-suit motions to dismiss. Some cases are quite clear an

evidentiary hearing is not necessary.”); Griffin v. City of Sweetwater Police

Dep’t, 319 So. 3d 89, 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“Notwithstanding the number

of amendments, the court would be within its rights to limit amendment based

on futility if it were apparent on the face of the pleadings that no combination

of facts and legal standards would allow recovery.”)

                                       2
Affirmed.

            3