INNOVA INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC
v.
JENNIFER ROLLE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2022-02-16
No. 21-1439
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2022)

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.


Holding

A trial court abuses its discretion by dismissing a complaint without permitting a party to amend once as a matter of course before a responsive pleading is served, even when the order is entered without prejudice.


Headnotes

[1] A party may amend a pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.

[2] A trial court improperly denies a motion to amend a complaint when the amendment would be the first amendment and no responsive pleading has been served.

Previewing 2 of 4 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

Key Quotes

“a party may amend a pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served”

Citation to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a) establishing the right to amend before responsive pleading

Facts & Procedural History

Innova Investment Group, LLC filed a complaint against Jennifer Rolle. At the time of dismissal, Innova had a pending motion to amend, which would hav…

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.


Opinion of the Court

Opinion filed February 16, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-1439 Lower Tribunal No. 20-21607 SP ________________

Innova Investment Group, LLC,

Appellant,

vs.

Jennifer Rolle,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Myriam Lehr, Judge. Matthew Estevez, P.A., and Matthew Estevez, for appellant. Max A. Goldfarb, for appellee. Before LOGUE, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.

Appellant Innova Investment Group, LLC, appeals the dismissal of its complaint against Jennifer Rolle. At the time of the dismissal, Innova had a pending motion to amend, which would have been the first amendment.

The order on appeal, although entered without prejudice by noting that “plaintiff may file a landlord-tenant case,” improperly denied the motion to amend and dismissed the cause. See If Six Were Nine, LLC v. Lincoln Road III, LLC, 242 So. 3d 1187, 1188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (explaining circumstances in which amendment should be permitted); see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(a) (“[a] party may amend a pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served”). Accordingly, we vacate the order on appeal and reverse and remand for the trial court to permit the filing of the amended complaint, which may be conditioned upon the payment of any additional filing fees resulting from the transfer from small claims to county court jurisdiction.

Reversed and remanded.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw