hearing. See, e.g., Traylor v. State, 596 So.2d 957, 979 (Fla.1992) (Kogan, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (explaining that the acts of an attorney may be imputed to the client except in circumstances involving fraud or violations of professional ethics). The record does not reflect that there was any evidentiary support for the trial court’s finding that private counsel made the statements in reliance on information she received from C.B. Moreover, the limited record before us reflects that these representations were not consistent with or material to the allegations made by C.B. in her initial letter to the court or by regional counsel in the motion to withdraw consent. Under these circumstances, we conclude that relief is warranted. See Howard, 959 So.2d at 313 (<HOLDING>). Because the evidence did not establish that
holding in an appeal from the dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint pursuant to rule 12b6 that when the papers before the sixth circuit indicate that the plaintiff could submit an amended complaint that would state a claim upon which relief can be granted the proper course is to remand to permit the plaintiff to amend holding that the defendants failed to establish an entitlement to dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint when the alleged fraud was immaterial to any issue that would ultimately be presented to the fact finder holding that a plaintiffs complaint need only establish a plausible entitlement to relief holding that the district court did not err in finding that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate notice of new allegations where the plaintiffs complaint gave the defendants no notice of the specific factual allegations presented for the first time in the plaintiffs opposition to summary judgment holding where the plaintiff presented evidence which demonstrates that the terms alleged by the defendants to be indefinite were in fact sufficiently well delineated to all parties the entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the defendants was inappropriate despite the fact that the defendants contested the plaintiffs evidence concerning the manner in which the relevant contractual language should be construed