LINDA G. THOMPSON, APPELLANT,
v.
PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
A plaintiff sought to amend her complaint to add a defendant after her initial count against that defendant was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. The trial court denied her motion for rehearing requesting permission to file a second amended complaint. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend without explanation, particularly where amendment would not prejudice the opposing party.
The trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion for rehearing without explanation. Under Florida law, amendments to pleadings should be freely allowed absent exceptional circumstances, and refusal to allow amendment constitutes an abuse of discretion unless the opposing party would be prejudiced, the privilege to amend has been abused, or amendment would be futile.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion for rehearing that seeks to amend a complaint when the proposed amendment is legally sufficient and would not prej…
[2] Florida public policy favors freely allowing amendments to pleadings to resolve cases on their merits.
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“Our rules of civil procedure evidence a clear policy that, absent exceptional circumstances, requests for leave to amend pleadings be granted.”
Establishes the strong public policy favoring amendments under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThompson filed a negligence complaint naming certain defendants but not Publix Supermarkets. She obtained leave to file an amended complaint adding Pu…
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 Dismiss For Failure To State A Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of an order which denied her motion for rehearing requesting that she be permitted to amend her complaint further. We conclude that the trial-court abused its discretion and, accordingly, reverse.
Initially, appellant filed a complaint in which she alleged that she had been injured as the result of negligence on the part of the defendants. Appellee was not among the defendants named. Subsequently, appellant sought leave to file an amended complaint which, among other things, added a count against appellee. That motion was granted.
Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the count of the amended complaint naming it as a defendant on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. The trial court granted appellee’s motion to dismiss, noting what it believed to be the legal deficiencies of the claim. However, without explanation, the trial court dismissed the count against appellee with prejudice.
Appellant timely filed a motion for rehearing, in which she requested that the trial court amend the order granting appel-lee’s motion to dismiss, so that the dismissal would be without prejudice. Appellant also requested that the trial court permit her to file a second amended complaint, a copy of which was attached to the motion. Again without explanation, the trial court denied the motion for rehearing. This was error. Our rules of civil procedure evidence a clear policy that, absent exceptional circumstances, requests for leave to amend pleadings be granted. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.190(a). “Although granting leave to amend rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, all doubts should be resolved in favor of allowing amendment. It is the public policy of this state to freely allow amendments to pleadings so that cases may be resolved upon their merits.” Adams v. Knabb Turpentine Co., 435 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). “As a general rule, refusal to allow amendment of a pleading constitutes an abuse of discretion unless it clearly appears that allowing the amendment would prejudice the opposing party; the privilege to amend has been abused; or amendment would be futile.” Bill Williams Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc. v. Haymarket Cooperative Bank, 592 So. 2d 302, 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), review dismissed, 598 So. 2d 76 (Fla.1992).
The record does not reflect why the trial court refused to permit appellant to amend further. However, it is clear from the record that this was only appellant’s first request to amend the count of her complaint which named appellee as a defendant. Moreover, our reading of the proposed amendment satisfies us that it is legally sufficient to state a cause of action against appellee. Finally, it is clear that permitting the amendment requested by appellant would not have prejudiced appellee.
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied appellant’s motion for rehearing. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
JOANOS, C.J., and ZEHMER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
EAC USA, Inc. v. Kawa, 805 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190 provides that “leave of court [to amend pleadings] shall be given freely when justice so requires.” All doubts must be resolved in favor of allowing amendment of pleadings. Thompson v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 615 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The failure to permit amendment constitutes an abuse of discretion unless it clearly appears the amendment would prejudice the opposing party, the privilege to amend has been abused, or amendment would be futile. Carter v. Ferre…
-
Morgan v. The Bank OF NEW York Mellon, 200 So. 3d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…mpson v. Jared Kane Co., Inc., 872 So. 2d 356, 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Appellant has not abused the privilege to amend, because the denied motion at issue was the first time she sought to amend her answer. See Thompson v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 615 So. 2d 796, 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Therefore, the question is whether Appellant’s proposed amended answer would prejudice the Bank or would be futile. Whether granting the proposed amendment would prejudice the opposing party is analyzed primarily in the co…
-
Undereducated Foster Children OF Florida v. Florida Senate, 700 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…beral policy of granting leave to amend pleadings, see rule 1.190(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (“Leave of court [for the filing of an amended pleading] shall be freely given when justice so requires.”); Thompson v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 615 So. 2d 796, 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), and the lack of any demonstration in the record that amendment would be futile, that the appellants had abused the amendment privilege, or that allowing amendment would prejudice appellees, I must conclude that the lower co…
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
- Bill Williams AIR Conditioning & Heating, Inc. v. Haymarket Coop. Bank, 592 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Adams v. Knabb Turpentine Co., Inc., 435 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)