Herranz v. Siam
Florida District Court of Appeal
2 So. 3d 1105 (2009)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Christian Herranz (plaintiff) filed an action against Roberto Siam (defendant). Siam moved to strike Herranz’s complaint, alleging that Herranz’s complaint was a sham pleading. The trial court scheduled an evidentiary hearing on Siam’s motion-to-strike on April 17, 2008. However, Herranz only received notice that a hearing would be held on April 17, not that it would be an evidentiary hearing. Following the April 17 evidentiary hearing, the trial court dismissed Herranz’s complaint, holding that it was a sham pleading. Herranz appealed, arguing that the dismissal order must be reversed because he never received notice that the April 17 hearing would be an evidentiary hearing and, therefore, his due-process rights were violated.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lagoa, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.