JOSEPH CARROLL, APPELLANT,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By

• Totura & Co., Inc. v. Williams, 754 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 2000)
  …omote the orderly movement of litigation”). That bedrock principle supports the proposition that rule 1.070© is intended to be “a case management tool, not an additional statute of limitations cutting off liability of a tort-feasor.” Root v. Little, 721 So. 2d 836, 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). As alluded to above, initial and amended complaints are similar but still distinct legal entities. On one hand, preparation and service of the initial complaint is largely within the plaintiffs control and only requires pr…
• Roberts v. Stidham, 19 So. 3d 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
  …[*1158] an extension to accomplish service. Kohler v. Vega-Maltes, 838 So. 2d 1249, 1250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Even without a motion to extend, dismissal is required only if reasonable cause for the delay in service is not documented. Root v. Little, 721 So. 2d 836, 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Rule 1.070(j) is designed to be a case management tool, not an additional statute of limitations cutting off the liability of a tortfea-sor, and it is not to be imposed inflexibly when the plaintiff demonstrates diligence a…

Authorities Cited

• Heath v. Wada Sue Becktell, 327 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1976)