Legal Opinion

Mazza v. Santoni

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 8, 2003No. 4D02-3901PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellants contend that the trial court erred in dismissing their third amended complaint with prejudice on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the prior pleadings and that it failed to name indispensable parties. We agree and reverse on both points.

The parties in this case established various business entities and entered into agreements to own and operate three adult video stores. Alleging that appellees wrongfully denied them their share of the profits from these businesses, appellants sued appellees for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.

Indispensable Parties.

Appellees…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Lopez v. AverySupreme Court of Florida · 1953
  2. Dimick v. RayDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000
  3. Phillips v. ChoateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984
  4. Dimino v. FarinaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990
  5. Glancy v. First Western BankDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2001

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Haire v. Overseas Holdings Ltd. PartnershipDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005
  2. Tillman Nature Preserve, LLC v. Babush, Dayflower JV, LLCDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2025

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API