THE CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
BONDED RENTAL AGENCY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE; CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CHARTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, V. HARRY KENDEL, HARRY MARKOWITZ AND BONDED RENTAL AGENCY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
The court held that the trial judges erred in denying the City of Miami's motions for leave to file amended complaints and counterclaims without ruling on the merits.
The City of Miami sought to amend its complaints and counterclaims in two separate cases. The trial judges in separate divisions denied these motions,…
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 Leave To Amend Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
By these consolidated interlocutory appeals the appellant, City of Miami, seeks reversal of orders entered by the trial judges of separate divisions of the Circuit Court of Dade County in cases numbered 63C-5040 and 66C-2672.
The order appealed in case no. 63C-S040 denied the city’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint against- the appellee without prejudice to the rights of the city to seek such relief as it may be advised in case no. 66C-2672 which was pending before another judge in another division.
The order appealed in case no. 66C-2672 was entered by the judge of the division in which the case was pending. It denied the city’s motion to file an amended counterclaim without prejudice to the defendant to seek such other remedy by way of appeal, in the prior proceedings (63C-5040) or by filing new proceedings. We find that the judges erred in the entry of these orders and they should be reversed.
In each case the city was entitled to a ruling on the merits of its motion. If it were entitled to amend it should have been *711granted such right. If it had no such right the motion should have been denied. If it should appear to the court that the city has a cause of action it should be allowed to proceed without the necessity of filing a new suit. The question of which division it should proceed in may be determined in accordance with the rules of the Circuit Court.
Reversed.