ANGEL SAN MARTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
DADELAND DODGE, INC., APPELLEE
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 affirmed the trial court's denial of plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to add a fraud count, holding that the amendment was properly denied because it was materially different from existing counts, proposed on the eve of trial after defendant was dismissed, and should have been discovered through due diligence.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to amend a complaint to add a fraud count when the proposed amendment is materially different from existing counts, made on the eve of trial after the defendant has been dismissed, and the plaintiff should have discovered the basis for the claim through due diligence.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to amend a complaint when the proposed amendment is materially different from existing counts, made on the…
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 intelligenceAngel San Martin sued Dadeland Dodge, Inc. and a codefendant. The trial court dismissed certain counts and granted summary judgment in favor of Dadela…
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 Motion To Amend Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff Angel San Martin appeals from a final order denying his motion to amend his complaint to add a fraud count against the defendant Dadeland Dodge, Inc. The denial of amendment occurred after the trial court had previously entered orders dismissing certain counts of the complaint and entering summary judgment in favor of the defendant Dadeland Dodge, Inc. on the remaining counts of the complaint, and with the cause set for trial against a codefendant also sued in the complaint. We affirm the order appealed from because (a) the proposed fraud count was materially different from the other counts of the complaint; (b) the amendment proposal was made on the eve of the trial, after the defendant Dadeland Dodge, Inc. had been dismissed from the case; (c) the plaintiff, in the exercise of due diligence, should have been aware of the alleged basis for the proposed fraud count long before he sought to amend his complaint; and, accordingly, (d) no abuse of discretion is shown in denying the motion to amend under the circumstances of the case. See Lasar Mfg. Co. v. Bachanov, 436 So. 2d 236, 237-38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Ruden v. Medalie, 294 So. 2d 403, 406-07 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Brown v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 252 So. 2d 817, 818, 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971).
The final order denying the motion to amend the complaint is, therefore, in all respects
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fleming v. Peoples First Fin. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 667 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…West 1988). Further, even if we were to find that the trial court had denied the motion for leave sub silencio, based on our review of the record, the denial would not be an abuse of discretion by the trial court. San Martin v. Dadeland Dodge, Inc., 508 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); see, Best Canvas Products & Supplies, Inc. v. Ploof Truck Lines, 713 F. 2d 618, 622-623 (11th Cir.1983). As to Fleming’s challenge of the award of attorney’s fees, the trial court’s order sets out the factors considered and the…
-
Heartwood 2, LLC v. Shay Dori, 208 So. 3d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…s ordinarily to be “given freely when justice so requires,” Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a), that liberality is diminished as a case nears trial, and when a plaintiff has failed to act with due diligence. San Martin v. Dadeland Dodge, Inc., 508 So. 2d 497, 498 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Our review under the abuse of discretion standard will uphold a discretionary ruling unless it is “arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is abused only where no reasonable perso…
-
State v. Chancelor, 833 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…0, 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)(“Florida case law applies a test of prejudice to the defendant as the primary consideration in determining whether the plaintiffs motion to amend should be granted or denied.”). See also San Martin v. Dadeland Dodge, Inc., 508 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lasar Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Bachanov, 436 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Brown v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 252 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Ruden v. Medalie, 294 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)