In a case that may provide some plaintiffs with protection from early Lone Pine orders, the Eleventh Circuit reversed a trial court’s dismissal of a groundwater contamination case for failure to sufficiently state claims after the trial court’s Lone Pine order. See Adinolfe v. United Technologies Corp., No. 12-16396 (11^th Cir. Oct. 6, 2014).

The case involved two consolidated toxic tort cases in which hundreds of property owners brought Florida common law and statutory claims against Defendant for personal injury and property damages stemming from alleged groundwater contamination at Defendant’s manufacturing plant. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion for Lone Pine orders, which required Plaintiffs to adequately demonstrate a prima facie basis for the allegations in their complaint. After an initial dismissal without prejudice that allowed Plaintiffs to file amended complaints, the court ultimately dismissed the entire action with prejudice. 

The Eleventh Circuit reversed and noted that during briefing and a hearing on Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint, the parties repeatedly engaged in arguments over the content and sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ factual filings in response to the order, thereby straying from the four corners of the pleadings.

The Eleventh Circuit held it was inappropriate for the trial court to require Plaintiffs to provide factual support for their claims before the court determined whether those claims survived a motion to dismiss, finding that such an exercise effectively transformed a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment without notice to the parties and an opportunity for mutual discovery. To allow the trial court to do so, the Eleventh Circuit continued, would be to impose a heightened pleading standard – “something the [U.S.] Supreme Court has frowned on.” Adinolfe, Slip Op. at 12.