INEZ HALL AND EUGENE HALL, PETITIONERS,
v.
FRANK W. WOJECHOWSKI AND AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, ETC., RESPONDENTS
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 denying a motion for leave to amend pleadings, when the omission was inadvertent and caused no prejudice, constitutes an abuse of discretion.
Plaintiffs' counsel inadvertently omitted certain claims from the complaint, which had been previously included and investigated. The omission was dis…
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 Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
WALDEN, Judge.
This is a petition for certiorari to review a trial court order denying plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the pleadings. We grant certiorari, quash the order, and remand with instructions to permit the amendment.
The record reveals that counsel inadvertently omitted certain claims for damages from the complaint. These claims had been included in a prior complaint and investigated by the defendants and, hence, there was no surprise or prejudice. The omission was discovered at pretrial conference and the motion to amend then made and denied.
It is our judgment that the denial represented an abuse of discretion which can not be fully corrected by plenary appeal. We reverse upon authority of Surette v. Galiardo, 309 So. 2d 253 (4th DCA Fla. 1975). See also Rule 1.190(e), F.R.C.P., which provides the tone and criteria to be employed in the consideration of amendments.
We grant certiorari; quash the order denying plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Certiorari granted, with directions.
DOWNEY and MAGER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Susan Fixel, Inc. v. Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc., 842 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…endment policy embodied by Rule 1.190 Fla. R. Civ. P., and the absence of any prejudice to Rosenthal or abuse of the amendment privilege by Fixel, allowing the claim to be asserted in the Third Amended Complaint was appropriate. Hall v. Wojechowski, 312 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Penn Cork and Closures, Inc. v. Piggyback Shippers Ass’n of Florida, Inc., 281 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).…
-
Tolbert v. CSX Transp., 590 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…“At every stage of the action the court must disregard any error or defect in the proceedings which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.190(e). Brown v. Wood, 202 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Hall v. Wojeckowski, 312 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). The amendment Tolbert sought to make to his complaint clearly did not affect the substantial rights of CSX because it did not state a new cause of action. The amendment alleged that Tolbert was permanently injured as a result o…
-
Andrzej Madura v. Full Spectrum Lending, Inc., 972 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 2007)…of Appeal dismissing Madu- [*170] ra’s petition for writ of certiorari in Madura v. Full Spectrum Lending, Inc., 926 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Review was initially granted based on alleged express and direct conflict with Hall v. Wojechowski, 312 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Upon further consideration, we have determined that we should exercise our discretion to discharge jurisdiction in this cause. Accordingly, jurisdiction is discharged and this review proceeding is hereby dismissed. It is so or…
Authorities Cited
- Surette v. Galiardo, 309 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)