IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA

JOSEPH PETITO,
NICHOLE SCHMIDT,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 2022 CA 001128 SC
v.
DIVISION H CIRCUIT

CHRISTOPHER LAUNDRIE,
ROBERTA LAUNDRIE,
STEVEN BERTOLINO,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS CHRISTOPHER LAUNDRIE AND ROBERTA
LAUNDRIE'S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

THIS CAUSE came before the Court for hearing on 24 May 2023 on Defendants
Christopher and Roberta Laundrie’s Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (DIN 91)
and Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendants,
Christopher Laundrie and Roberta Laundrie (DIN 121). Plaintiffs were present and represented
at the hearing by Patrick Reilly, Esq. Defendants were represented at the hearing by P. Matthew
Luka, Esq. The Court has considered the Second Amended Complaint filed in this case (DIN
60), Defendants’ Motion, Plaintiffs’ Response, the Joint Stipulation Regarding Motion to
Dismiss (DIN 133), case law provided by the parties, and the arguments of Counsel, and is
otherwise advised in the premises.
As stated by the undersigned’s learned colleague in the Order Denying Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss entered previously in this cause (DIN 42),
“[t]oday’s ruling does not determine what happened to Gabby
Petito. Instead, today’s ruling is technical in nature. It determines
only whether Gabby Petito’s parents (the Plaintiffs) stated a valid
claim against…[]the Defendants[].”

Order Denying Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, ¶ 2. The undersigned also reiterates her learned
colleague in that the reader of this order should be cautioned that any allegation discussed in this
order is simply that—an allegation not a proven fact.

Page 1 of 5

Filed 6/14/2023 5:29 PM - Karen E Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FL
 Under Florida law, the Court must assume all well-pled facts are true when ruling on a
motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Ellerson v. Moriarty, 331 So. 3d 767, 769-770 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021).
“A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint to state a cause of action; it does
not turn on issues of ultimate fact.” DeMartino v. Simat, 948 So. 2d 841, 843 (Fla. 2d DCA
2007) (citing Holland v. Anheuser Busch, Inc., 643 So. 2d 621, 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); see,
also, Curtis v. Henderson, 777 So. 2d 1017, 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (“[T]he purpose of a
motion to dismiss is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint and not to determine issues of
fact.”). “[T]he court is not permitted to speculate as to whether the allegations will ultimately be
proven.” Maciejewski v. Holland, 441 So. 2d 703, 704 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). And, “a motion to
dismiss should not be granted on the basis of an affirmative defense…unless that defense is
established on the face of the pleadings.” Patterson v. McNeel, 704 So. 2d 1070, 1072 (Fla. 2d
DCA 1997). “Therefore, in ruling on a motion to dismiss, [a trial] court is confined to the four
corners of the complaint and must take as true all well-pleaded, material facts.” Id. (citing
Temples v. Fla. Indus. Constr. Co., 310 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Gennaro v. Leeper, 313
So. 2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)); see, also, Murphy v. Bay Colony Prop. Owners Ass’n, 12 So. 3d
924, 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“When ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of
action, the trial court must accept the material allegations as true and is bound to a consideration
of the allegations found within the four corners of the complaint.”).
Further, a motion to dismiss is not a substitute for a motion for summary judgment and
“[t]he court may not transform a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.”
Cowder v. Hillsborough Cnty., 715 So. 2d 954, 955 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
Plaintiffs sued Defendants for intentional infliction of emotional distress in Counts I, II,
IV, and V of their Second Amended Complaint. Florida recognizes the tort of intentional
infliction of emotional distress. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. McCarson, 467 So. 2d 277 (Fla.
1985). “To state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a complaint
must allege four elements: (1) deliberate or reckless infliction of mental suffering; (2) outrageous
conduct; (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress; and (4) the distress was severe.” Liberty
Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citing Dependable Life Ins.
Co. v. Harris, 510 So. 2d 985, 986 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)). The question for today is whether
Plaintiffs stated causes of action for that tort against Defendants Christopher Laundrie and
Roberta Laundrie.

Page 2 of 5

Filed 6/14/2023 5:29 PM - Karen E Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FL
 Analysis
Many of the arguments made in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and at the hearing for
same have been addressed by the undersigned’s predecessor in the Order Denying Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss entered previously in this cause (DIN 42) and in the undersigned’s Order
Denying Defendant Bertolino’s Motion to Dismiss dated the same date as this Order. The Court
adopts the analysis and legal conclusions of both stated orders herein and will not address the
arguments resolved in those orders in this Order. The Court limits its analysis herein to the
specific arguments not otherwise addressed by the two (2) Orders cited above.
Causation
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately pled causation. Specifically, causation
is directly pled in Paragraphs 42, 44, 48, and 50 of the Second Amended Complaint. To the
extent causation has not been directly pled, reasonable inferences made in favor of the Plaintiff
support causation when reviewing all factual allegations of the Second Amended Complaint. In
reviewing a motion to dismiss, the Court is required to view all reasonable inferences arising
from the allegations in favor of the Plaintiffs. Peterson v. Pollack, 290 So. 3d 102, 109 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2020).
Argument that Plaintiffs must be Present
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ causes of action fail because a plaintiff must be present
for the infliction of emotional distress. After review of all factual allegations of the Second
Amended Complaint, and all reasonable inferences arising from the allegations in favor the
Plaintiffs, it can be reasonably inferred that the conduct alleged was directed toward the
Plaintiffs. Specifically, both statements reference Gabby Petito’s “family”. See Habelow v.
Travelers Ins. Co., 389 So. 2d 218, 220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (discussing that in all cases in
Florida recognizing intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff was the recipient of
the insult or abuse, or the message was clearly directed at the plaintiff through a third person).
Additional Arguments
To the extent that Defendants made additional arguments to support dismissal in their
Motion or at the hearing as to same, the Court has determined that none are sufficient to preclude
the Court at the motion to dismiss stage from concluding that the Second Amended Complaint

Page 3 of 5

Filed 6/14/2023 5:29 PM - Karen E Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FL
 states causes of action for intentional infliction of emotion distress against Defendants on behalf
of the Plaintiffs.
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED as
follows:
1. Defendants Christopher Laundrie and Roberta Laundrie’s Motion to Dismiss Second Amended
Complaint (DIN 91) is hereby DENIED.
2. Defendants Christopher Laundrie and Roberta Laundrie shall answer the Second Amended
Complaint within 10 days of the date of this Order.
DONE and ORDERED in Venice, Sarasota County, Florida, this ___ day of June 2023.

DANIELLE BREWER, CIRCUIT JUDGE

CHARLES J MELTZ ESQ

901 N. LAKE DESTINY RD.
STE 450
MAITLAND, FL 32751

CHARLES J MELTZ ESQ

901 N. LAKE DESTINY RD.
STE 450
MAITLAND, FL 32751

PATRICK J REILLY
355 WEST VENICE AVENUE
VENICE, FL 34285

PATRICK J REILLY
355 WEST VENICE AVENUE
VENICE, FL 34285

P MATTHEW LUKA
707 N. FRANKLIN STREET
10TH FLOOR

Page 4 of 5

Filed 6/14/2023 5:29 PM - Karen E Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FL
 TAMPA, FL 33602

JOSEPH PETITO
No address on file
NICHOLE SCHMIDT
No address on file
CHRISTOPHER LAUNDRIE
4343 WABASSO AVE
NORTH PORT, FL 34287

ROBERTA LAUNDRIE
4343 WABASSO AVE
NORTH PORT, FL 34287

P MATTHEW LUKA
707 N. FRANKLIN STREET
10TH FLOOR
TAMPA, FL 33602

P MATTHEW LUKA
707 N. FRANKLIN STREET
10TH FLOOR
TAMPA, FL 33602

STEVEN BERTOLINO
No address on file
LAURA MARIE KELLY
901 NORTH LAKE DESTINY RD
STE 450
MAITLAND, FL 32751

MELTZ, CHARLES J ESQ cjmeltz@triallawfla.com

REILLY, PATRICK J
MELTZ, CHARLES J ESQ
KELLY, LAURA MARIE
LUKA, P MATTHEW
LUKA, P MATTHEW
REILLY, PATRICK J
REILLY, PATRICK J
Charles J Meltz
Margaret Zawacki
E-SERVICE@SNYDERANDREILLY.COM
enotice@triallawfla.com
LMKELLY@TRIALLAWFLA.COM
mchelleur@trombleyhaneslaw.com
MLUKA@TROMBLEYHANESLAW.COM
PAT@SNYDERANDREILLY.COM
VALERIE@SNYDERANDREILLY.COM
cpridgen@triallawfla.com
officestaff@hctjudge.com

Page 5 of 5

Filed 6/14/2023 5:29 PM - Karen E Rushing, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, FL