LION INTELLIGENCE & SECURITY SERVICES, INC. v. QUICKSILVER CAPITAL, LLC

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed February 22, 2023.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-1164
Lower Tribunal No. 21-11597 CC
________________
Lion Intelligence & Security Services, Inc., et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
Quicksilver Capital, LLC,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Natalie
Moore, Judge.
Metschlaw, P.A., and Lawrence R. Metsch (Hollywood), for appellants.
No appearance for appellee. 1
Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and HENDON and GORDO, JJ.
GORDO, J.
1
Appellee was precluded from filing an answer brief after failing to heed this
Court’s order directing them to file same within a specified period of time.
Lion Intelligence & Security Services, Inc. (“Lion”) and Wancito
Francius (“Francius”) appeal the trial court’s order granting Quicksilver
Capital, LLC’s (“Quicksilver”) motion to dismiss with prejudice. We have
jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). The sole issue here is whether
the trial court had an obligation to conduct an evidentiary hearing on
Quicksilver’s motion to dismiss. Finding no error in the dismissal, we affirm.
See Skupin v. Hemisphere Media Grp., Inc., 314 So. 3d 353, 357 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2020) (“[A]s everything the trial court needed to make its determination
as a matter of law was in the complaint or incorporated into it, the trial court
correctly dismissed the complaint with prejudice.”); Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v.
Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105 (Fla. 2001) (“[R]es judicata bars relitigation in
a subsequent cause of action not only of claims raised, but also claims that
could have been raised.”); Nieves v. Viera, 150 So. 3d 1236, 1238 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2014) (“[T]here is no automatic requirement that there be an evidentiary
hearing on pre-suit motions to dismiss. Some cases are quite clear an
evidentiary hearing is not necessary.”); Griffin v. City of Sweetwater Police
Dep’t, 319 So. 3d 89, 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“Notwithstanding the number
of amendments, the court would be within its rights to limit amendment based
on futility if it were apparent on the face of the pleadings that no combination
of facts and legal standards would allow recovery.”)
2
Affirmed.
3