IRIS THOMAS, APPELLANT,
v.
NORTHSIDE FOODS, INC., D/B/A MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT AND MAR-MAK, INC., D/B/A MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT, 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 reversed summary judgment against Mar-Mak, holding that the relation back doctrine should have been applied to allow amendment adding Mar-Mak as a defendant despite the statute of limitations, because Mar-Mak shared sufficient identity of interest with the original defendant Northside Foods.
The relation back doctrine applies to an amended complaint adding a new defendant when the new defendant shares sufficient identity of interest with the original defendant and would not be prejudiced by the amendment.
[1] The relation back doctrine under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(c) permits amendment adding a new defendant despite the statute of limitations when the new defenda…
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 intelligence“the party "is sufficiently related to an original party such that the addition would not prejudice the new party"”
Standard for applying relation back doctrine to amended complaints adding new parties
Iris Thomas sued McDonald's restaurant defendants. The trial court entered summary judgment for both Northside Foods and Mar-Mak. Thomas's amended com…
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 Identity Of Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In the instant case, the trial court entered final summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Northside Foods, Inc., d/b/a McDonald’s Restaurant [Northside Foods], and Mar-Mak, Inc., d/b/a McDonald’s Restaurant [Mar-Mak], Iris Thomas appeals from that portion of the final summary judgment entered in favor of Mar-Mak.
We reverse finding that the trial court should have applied the relation back doctrine to the plaintiffs amended complaint that added Mar-Mak as a new defendant, thereby avoiding a statute of limitations bar. A review of the record shows that Mar-Mak had sufficient identity of interest with the original defendant, Northside Foods, as they shared the same officers, directors, and registered agent, such that the new defendant would not be prejudiced. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(c); Darden v. Beverly Health & Rehabilitation, 763 So. 2d 542, 542-43 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (holding that relation back doctrine can be applied to an amended complaint that adds a new party to the lawsuit if the party “is sufficiently related to an original party such that the addition would not prejudice the new party”)(quoting Schwartz ex rel. Schwartz v. Wilt Chamberlain’s of Boca Raton, Ltd., 725 So. 2d 451, 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)). It appears that the error in naming the defendant arose because the insurance adjuster who represented both entities misidentified the owner of this particular McDonald’s Restaurant as being Northside Foods, when the adjuster should have identified the owner as Mar-Mak.
Accordingly, we reverse, in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Est. OF Gertie Mae Youngblood v. Halifax Convalescent Ctr., Ltd., 874 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…997) provides: The action may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce such rights and to recover actual and punitive damages for any deprivation or infringement on the rights of the resident. . Thomas v. Northside Foods, Inc., 827 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Darden v. Beverly Health & Rehabilitation, 763 So. 2d 542, 543 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). . The statute in effect at the time the cause of action arises governs the action. See Cenatus v. Naples Community Hospital, Inc., 689 So. 2d 30…
-
Stirman v. Michael Graves Design Grp., Inc., 983 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…ities of interest between the misnamed initial defendant and the substituted, correctly named defendant, and the correctly named defendant unquestionably had early knowledge of the plaintiffs’ [*629] claims. See also Thomas v. Northside Foods, Inc., 827 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). As a result, MGA suffered no prejudice from the misnomer, and relation back is warranted. The order dismissing MGA with prejudice, the order denying rehearing, and the final judgment as to MGA are therefore reversed. On remand t…
Authorities Cited
- Schwartz v. Wilt Chamberlain's OF Boca Raton, Ltd., 725 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Darden v. Beverly Health & Rehab., 763 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)