HomeMy WebLinkAbout1359 ~
, ~ .
483122
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR SAINT LUCIE COUNTY,
FLORIDA
-CASE N0. 78-547-CA
SELBY BURCH, JOE BURCH,
CLARE BURCH,
Plaintiffs, _
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
-vs- THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS'
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CLAIM FOR-PUNITIVE DAMAGES
TRANSPORTATION,
STATE PAVING CORPORATION
and DALCAMP INCORPORATED,
Defendants.
THIS CAUSE having come on for hearing before the Honorable
Charles E. Smith on April 1, 1980, upon Defendant DALCAMP
INCORPORATED'S Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint, and
DALCAMP'S Motiom to Strike Plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages
the Court heard arguments in which DALCAMP argued the Plaintiffs'
Complaint should be dismissed for the following reasons:
1. DALCAMP argued that Plaintiffs had not alleged sufficient
facts against DALCAMR INCORPORATED to state a cause of action in
nuisance. -
2. DALCAMP argued that the Estate of Nate Burch was not
~ properly added to the suit and was a necessary party to the suit.
3. DALCAMP INCORPORATED argued that the original Plaintiffs
were not proper parties to this suit and, therefore, had no claim
at all.
4. DALCAMP argued that paragraphs 5 and 6 were not adequate
to state a cause of action in nuisance since the Defendants were
excavating under excavation permits lawfully.
5. DALCAMP argued that the Plaintiffs hack failed to set out
in sufficient detail who had committed the acts complained of in
paragraphs 5 and 6, and in the Complaint generally.
6. DALCAMP argued that the Plaintiffs had not alleged
sufficient facts to justify a claim for punitive damages.
Page One
BOGK~~ PAGE~NcJO