relatively straightforward affirmative defense in Florida

2026Servs., Inc., 88 So. 3d 1027, 1029 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) ("Even a relatively straightforward affirmative defense, such as one based upon the statute of limitations, is not a basis for dismissal unless the complaint affirmatively and clearly shows the conclusive applicability of 4 The "privilege to interfere to protect one's own financial and contractual interests" is a legitimate defense to a tortious interference claim and resolution of that defense requires more than just conclusory allegations in a motion to dismiss.

2023Servs., Inc., 88 So. 3d 1027, 1029 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (observing that “‘[e]ven a relatively straightforward affirmative defense, such as one based upon the statute of limitations, is not a basis for dismissal unless the complaint affirmatively and clearly shows the conclusive applicability of the defense’” (citation omitted)).

2012“Even a relatively straightforward affirmative defense, such as one based upon the statute of limitations, is not a basis for dismissal unless the complaint affirmatively and clearly shows the conclusive applicability of the defense.” Vause, 687 So.2d at 261 .

2007Ctr., 687 So.2d 258, 261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (en banc) ("Even a relatively straightforward affirmative defense, such as one based upon the statute of [repose], is not a basis for dismissal unless the complaint affirmatively and clearly shows the conclusive applicability of the defense.").

2026See Weisman v. S. Wine & Spirits of Am., Inc., 297 So. 3d 646 , 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (holding defendant must show that "improper means were not employed" in protecting his or her interest, upon which "[t]he burden to defeat the privilege then shifts to the party that brought the tortious interference claim to show improper means were employed" (citing Salit v. Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., 742 So. 2d 381, 386 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999))); see also Melbourne Med.

2023Or, stated differently, “[a] motion to dismiss should not be granted on the basis of ... defenses unless the ... defenses appear on the face of the pleading.” Mettler, Inc. v. Ellen Tracy, Inc., 648 So. 2d 253, 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (alteration added).