Furst v. Blackman
Florida District Court of Appeal
744 So. 2d 1222 (1999)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Henry Furst (plaintiff) filed an action against Alan Blackman (defendant) based on a disputed stock purchase. After Furst filed his third amended-complaint, Blackman moved to strike it, arguing that it was a sham pleading because it directly contradicted sworn statements contained in Furst’s prior filings. Blackman did not set forth any facts or examples supporting his allegations. Blackman’s motion-to-strike was not verified, but Blackman did file an affidavit-in-support. The trial court denied Blackman’s motion-to-strike. Blackman then filed a motion-to-dismiss Furst’s third amended-complaint in which he raised 10 new arguments in addition to reiterating his argument from the motion-to-strike. After a hearing, a different trial judge dismissed Furst’s complaint with prejudice, but without explanation. Furst appealed, challenging the dismissal order. Blackman countered, arguing that dismissal was appropriate because (1) Furst’s third amended-complaint was a sham pleading; and (2) the trial court had the inherent ability to dismiss any action in which one party perpetuated a fraud on the court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gross, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.