Dna Sports Performance Lab, Inc. v. Club Atlantis Condominium Assoc., Inc.

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed April 26, 2017.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D15-2003
Lower Tribunal No. 14-28379
________________
DNA Sports Performance Lab, Inc. and Neiman Nix,
Appellants,
vs.
Club Atlantis Condominium Association, Inc.,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Rosa I.
Rodriguez, Judge.
Damian & Valori, LLP, Peter F. Valori and Amanda L. Fernandez, for
appellants.
Fowler White Burnett, P.A., Alice K. Sum and Stephanie M. Chaissan, for
appellee.
Before SUAREZ, C.J., and ROTHENBERG, and FERNANDEZ, JJ.
FERNANDEZ, J.
DNA Sports Performance Lab, Inc. and Neiman Nix (“DNA Sports”) appeal
the dismissal of their Amended Verified Complaint with prejudice. We reverse the
dismissal because an amendment could have supported a cause of action for breach
of contract in count one and tortious interference with a business and contractual
relationship in count three, and remand to allow DNA Sports to file a second
amended complaint.
DNA Sports is the tenant of commercial premises within a condominium
property, pursuant to a lease agreement with the owner, and appellee Club Atlantis
Condominium Association, Inc., operates the association for the subject
condominium. The Amended Verified Complaint raises counts for breach of
contract, specific performance, tortious interference with a business and
contractual relationship, invasion of privacy, and negligent misrepresentation
against Club Atlantis.
DNA Sports alleged in count one for breach of contract that Club Atlantis
owed them express and implied contractual duties for the exclusive use/rental of
between five and twelve assigned parking spaces. They further alleged that Club
Atlantis materially breached those contractual duties and caused damage as a direct
and proximate result of the breaches.
In count three for tortious interference with a business and contractual
relationship, DNA Sports alleged that they had an existing and ongoing business
relationship with their landlord, of which Club Atlantis was well aware, since Club
Atlantis screened DNA Sports as prospective commercial tenants and expressly
2
approved the commercial lease between DNA Sports and the landlord. DNA
Sports further alleged that Club Atlantis intentionally and unjustifiably interfered
with the ongoing business and contractual relationships between DNA Sports and
their landlord, that Club Atlantis intentionally procured the breach of the
Commercial Lease Agreement between DNA Sports and their landlord, and that
DNA Sports has been damaged as a direct and proximate consequence of Club
Atlantic’s tortious interference.
The trial court dismissed the Amended Verified Complaint with prejudice as
to all counts.1 It was an abuse of discretion to dismiss the Amended Verified
Complaint with prejudice as to counts I and III where the complaint is amendable.
The standard or review of an order that dismisses a complaint for failure to state a
cause of action is de novo. See Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Lippi, 78 So. 3d
81, 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).
Count I could be amended to state a cause of action for breach of contract.
The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are: (1) the existence of a
contract, (2) a breach of the contract, and (4) damages that resulted from the
breach. Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Gregory, Inc., 16 So. 3d 979, 981 (Fla. 3rd
DCA 2009). DNA Sports could allege the existence of an implied-in-fact contract
and/or promissory estoppel. DNA Sports alleged that Club Atlantis owed express
1DNA Sports consented to the dismissal of count II and focused its appeal on the
dismissal of counts I and III.
3
and implied contractual duties for the exclusive use/rental of assigned parking
spaces, which Club Atlantis breached and caused damage resulting from the
breach. DNA Sports could also plead additional facts to support the existence of a
valid and enforceable contract.
Count III could likewise be amended to state a cause of action for tortious
interference with a contractual or business relationship. A claim for tortious
interference with a contractual or business relationship consists of four elements:
1) the existence of a business relationship between the plaintiff and a third person,
not necessarily evidenced by an enforceable contract, under which the plaintiff has
legal rights, 2) the defendant’s knowledge of the relationship, 3) an intentional and
unjustified interference with the relationship by the defendant which induces or
otherwise causes the third person not to perform, and 4) damage to the plaintiff
resulting from the third person’s failure to perform. See Seminole Tribe of Florida
v. Times Pub. Co., Inc., 780 So. 2d 310, 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). DNA Sports
alleged the existence of a business relationship with their landlord and Club
Atlantis’ knowledge of the relationship. DNA Sports further alleged that Club
Atlantis intentionally and unjustifiably interfered with the ongoing business and
contractual relationship between DNA Sports and their landlord that resulted in
damages. DNA Sports could also plead additional facts to support its claim for
tortious interference.
4
We therefore reverse the trial court’s dismissal of DNA Sports’ Amended
Verified Complaint with prejudice as to counts I and III and remand with
instructions to allow DNA Sports to file an amended complaint.
Reversed and remanded.
5