LAURA ESTERBROOK, ETC.
v.
MASTEC, INC., ETC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A plaintiff seeking relation back of an amended pleading to substitute a defendant must demonstrate that the new and old defendants have such identity of interest that the substituted defendant will not be prejudiced, and that the plaintiff's failure to join the correct parties was not due to inexcusable neglect.
[1] Relation back of amended pleadings to substitute defendants requires proof both that the new and old defendants share such identity of interest that the substituted defen…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the general rule on the "relation back" of substituted party defendants in amended pleadings requires the plaintiff to demonstrate not only that the new and old defendants have such an identity of interest that the substituted defendant will not be prejudiced, but also "that his failure to join the correct parties at the outset had not been due to his own inexcusable neglect"”
Statement of the controlling legal standard from Garrido v. Markus, Winter & Spitale Law Firm
Laura Esterbrook appealed a circuit court decision involving claims against MasTec, Inc. and other parties. The appeal concerned the substitution of p…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Inexcusable Neglect cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Garrido v. Markus, Winter & Spitale Law Firm, 358 So. 2d 577, 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (recognizing that the general rule on the “relation back” of substituted party defendants in amended pleadings requires the plaintiff to demonstrate not only that the new and old defendants have such an identity of interest that the substituted defendant will not be prejudiced, but also “that his failure to join the correct parties at the outset had not been due to his own inexcusable neglect” (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 15.15)).
2