HomeMy WebLinkAbout0936 ~
~
ZN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY,
FLORTDA.
CASE NO. 86-704-CA-03?f~~~~8,
ROBIN M. PETERSEN, ESQUIRE,
et als . , ' # `
Plaintiffs,
vs
~
, ~
SOUT~ERN BELL TELEPNONE & '
TELEGRAPH CO., etc., et a1.,
Defendants.
~ v ~
~ ~
ORDER ON M~TIOt1 TO ~
DISMISS, SEVER AND STRIKE '
- i
~
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the Motion of Defendants
~
to Dismiss, Sever and Strike. The Court has considered the
2
2
arguments of counsel and the Memorandums of Law. It is thereupon ?
y
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
~
1. Count I of the Complaint is dismissed based unon the ~
_
s
Stipulation of Plaintiffs contained in their Memorandum. ~
i
2. Counts VI, VII, VIII and IX are dismissed because ~
the Court feels Plaintiffs have failed to allege additional ~
~
>
acts of the Defendants apart from breach of contract which ~
amount to an independent tort, Electronic Security Systems ~
~
i
Corporation v Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Campany, ~
~
482 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 3rd DCA, 1986). ~
The Court has considered Plaintiffs' reliance on ~
~
Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company v Hanft, 436 ~
~
So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1983) relative to their right to maintain ~
negligence actions. It has also noted the Hanft case resulted ~
II ~
fror.l an appeal from the Third District Court of Appeal, Hanft #
v Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, 402 So. 2d 453
(Fla. 3rd DCA, 1981), in which_two of the three Judges ;
were the same as those who decided Electronic Security Systems ~
Corporation, supra. The Third District's decision in Hanft
;
~ specifically noted proger allegations for an action based in
~
~ tort had been made. Therefore, the Court has found the Third
E
~
~ District's later decision in E~.ectronic Security Systems
~
Corporation requiring allegations of additional conduct beyond
~
~ ~
~ H
~
i ~0526 PA~0931
~
~ ~
~