HomeMy WebLinkAbout1225 •
'i ~
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
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
-vs- MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS'
CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AND MOTION TO DROP PARTIES
TRANSPORTATION,
STATE PAVING CORPORATION
and DALCAMP INCORPORATED,
Defendants.
THIS CAUSE having come on for hearing before the Honorable
Charles E. Smith on April 22, 1980, upon Defendant STATE PAVING
CORPORATION'S Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint, Motion ,
}
to Strike Plaintiffs' Claim for Punitive Damages and Motion to
Drop Parties the Court heard arguments in which STATE PAVING
argued the Plaintiffs' Complaint should be dismissed for the
following reasons:
1. STATE PAVING CORPORATION argued that Plaintiffs had not'
alleged sufficient facts against STATE PAVING CORPORATION to state
a cause of action in nuisance.
2. STATE PAVING CORPORATION argued that the Estate of Kate
Burch was not properly added to the suit and was a necessary party
to the suit..
II
3. STATE PAVING CORPORATION argued that the original Plaintiffs
E
i
were not proper parties to this suit and, therefore, had no claim
i
~ at all .
i 4. STATE PAVING CORPORATION argued that paragraphs 5 and 6
i
I
were not adequate to state a cause of action in nuisance since
the Defendants were excavating under excavation permits lawfully.
5. STATE PAVING CORPORATION argued that the Plaintiffs had
failed to .set out in sufficient detail who had committed the acts i
complained of in paragraphs 5 and6, and in the Complaint generally.
6. STATE PAVING CORPORATION argued that the Plaintiffs had
s
not alleged sufficient facts to justify a claim for punitive
i
damages.
E
c
Page One ~
e«~33(l P~E121.?