OTTO B. KIEHL AND JAMES H. SMITH, APPELLANTS,
v.
BARRY D. BROWN, MARK E. MOTLUCK AND MEL NEHLEBER, 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 additional claims in the second amended complaint related back to the date of the original timely filed complaint, despite the statute of limitations having run.
[1] An amendment to a complaint relates back to the date of the original pleading when the claim asserted in the amendment arises out of the conduct, transaction, or occurren…
[2] An amendment relates back if the original pleading provides fair notice of the general fact situation from which the claim arises.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs filed a second amended complaint alleging additional claims after a prior reversal. The trial court dismissed these new claims on statute o…
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.190(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After the reversal of the dismissal of the amended complaint which was ordered in Anderson v. Brown, 524 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), review denied, 531 So. 2d 1352 (Fla.1988), two of the named plaintiffs, the appellants Kiehl and Smith, filed a second amended complaint which alleged claims on additional grounds against three of the already named party defendants, the appel-lees, Brown, Motluck and Nehleber. The trial judge dismissed these claims on statute of limitations grounds. We reverse.
It seems clear to us that the so-called “additional claims” were fairly covered and referred to in the allegations by these plaintiffs, among others, against these defendants, among others, which had been asserted in the admittedly-timely filed amended complaint. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190 provides that an “amendment ... relate[s] back to the date of the original pleading” whenever the claim contained in the amendment arises out of the “conduct, transaction or occurrence” attempted to be set forth in the initial complaint. The latter condition is satisfied, in turn, if, as stated in Keel v. Brown, 162 So. 2d 321; 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964), cert. denied, 166 So. 2d 753 (Fla.1964), in quoting from an earlier edition of Moore’s,
the original pleading gives fair notice of the general fact situation out of which the claim or defense arises.
See J. Moore, A. Vestal & P. Kurland, Moore’s Manual Federal Practice and Procedure § 9.09 (rev. ed. 1988). Put another way,
an amendment which merely makes more specific what has already been alleged generally, or which changes the legal theory of the action, will relate back even though the statute of limitations has run in the interim.
Keel, 162 So. 2d at 323, quoting from Moore’s second edition. See J. Moore, A. Vestal & P. Kurland, supra, § 9.09. In our view, these rules apply to each of the claims specifically asserted in the second amended complaint by the appellants against the appellees. Accordingly, the judgment under review is Reversed.
SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE, J., concur. GAVIN K. LETTS, Associate Judge, dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Kopel v. Bernardo Kopel, 229 So. 3d 812 (Fla. 2017)…defendant fair notice of the general factual scenario or factual underpinning of the claim, amendments stating new legal theories can relate back. Fabbiano v. Demings, 91 So. 3d 893, 895 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Flores, 35 So. 3d at 148; Kiehl v. Brown, 546 So. 2d 18, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). This is true even where the legal theory of recovery has changed2 or where the original and amended claims require the assertion of different elements.3 In Armiger, the plaintiff sued a company and its janitorial service pro…
-
Armiger v. Associated Outdoor Clubs, Inc., 48 So. 3d 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (citing Keel); Flores, 35 So. 3d at 148 (“We have articulated the test to be whether ‘the original pleading gives fair notice of the general fact situation out of which the claim or defense arises.’ ” (quoting Kiehl v. Brown, 546 So. 2d 18, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989))). Also, “[t]he [relation back] doctrine is to be applied liberally to achieve its salutary ends.” Flores, 35 So. 3d at 148 (citing C.H. v. Whitney, 987 So. 2d 96, 99 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)). In this case, the circuit court did…
-
Caduceus Props., LLC v. Graney, 137 So. 3d 987 (Fla. 2014)…xplaining that the relation-back doctrine is to be liberally applied and articulating “the test to be whether ‘the original pleading gives fair notice of the general fact situation out of which the claim or defense arises’ ” (quoting Kiehl v. Brown, 546 So. 2d 18, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989))); Bill Williams Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc. v. Hay-market Coop. Bank, 592 So. 2d 302, 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (explaining that amendments to pleadings should be permitted whenever possible, unless doing so would prejudic…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Keel v. Brown, 162 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Deringer v. Pappas, 166 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1964)
- City of Boca Raton v. Sellers, 166 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1964)
- Anderson v. Brown, 524 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)