SEVEN SKIES INC

v.

LA COUTURE INC

Before, WARD, ZABEL, and_FINE, JJ. I

ZABEL, J.

Cohn, Judge. O E ?‘ $2 Q2 Q"‘s 28* l"' . -cl? zgzn Fl EH3 II-4.“: -—:: b \ ' ('7 _ O 131, 3-t

Q-O

i:*1=|mv iv-aasenz aaooaa amcan mofiszemw, 'g emeieéi -p [3 [*2] The Petitioner, SEVEN SKIES, INC., seeks review ofthe trial court’s non-final orders pertaining tothe Plaintiff’s motions for leave to amend the complaint and for leave to transfer the case to the circuit court. The underlying litigation is based on a landlord-tenant dispute. In the course oflitigation, the Petitioner alleged that its damages had increased beyond the $15,000.00 jurisdictional limit of the county court. The trial court denied the Plaintiffs motions to transfer the case to the circuit court and its motions for leave to amend the complaint to reflect an increased amount ofdamages sought. The trial court also denied the Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration. The subject motions, which were denied by the trial court, amounted to the Plaintiffs first request for leave to amend. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure l.l90(a) provides that leave to amend “shall be given freely when justice so requires.” Trial courts’ decisions on motions for leave to amend are reviewed under an abuse ofdiscretion standard. Video Indep. Med. Examination, Inc. v. City of Weston, 792 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). “Leave to amend should not be denied unless the privilege has been abused, there is prejudice to the opposing party, or amendment would be futile.” Lifia Gen. Sec. Ins. Co. v. Horal, 667 S0. 2d 967, 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). As the court in Carib Ocean Shipping, Inc. v. Armas, 854 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), so aptly stated: In accordance with the language of the rule [Florida Rule of Civil Procedure l.190(a)] itself, see generally Bill Williams Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc. v. , Haymarket Coop. -Bank, 592 So. 2d 302 (Fla. lst DCA l991)(general rule favors amendment), it is clear that the “interests of justice” are far better served by determining a case on its substantive merits, rather than a mistake in pleading.; ' General Electric C0. v. Sargent & Lundy, 916 F. 2d 1119 (6th Cir.l990)(untimeliness ofmotion to amend on eve before trial to add defense ofprivilege no bar to dismissal of suit where no prejudice caused by delay); While amendments may be denied when there is a sufficient showing ofprejudice to the opposing party in preparing for the “new issue,” see Designers Tile Int’! Corp. v. Capitol C C0rp., 499 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review denied, 508 So. 2d 13 (Fla.l987), it is clear that the “justice factor” more than outweighs any such prejudice including that which may have been caused by the fact that the motion to amend was not filed until shortly before trial. ... [*3] Id. (footnotes removed). Furthermore, Fla. R. Civ. Pro l.060(a) states that “ifit should appear at any time that an action is pending in the wrong court ofany county, it may be transferred to the proper court within said county.” Despite all ofthis well-settled law on the subject issue ofthis appeal, in reviewing the case at bar at this time, this Court is merely responding to a petition for certiorari review of a non- final order. This Court has discretionaryjurisdiction to hear petitions and issue writs ofcertiorari pursuant to Article V, section 5(b), Florida Constitution, Florida Rule ofAppellate Procedure 9.030(c)(3), and Florida Rule ofAppellate Procedure 9.100. However, certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that should not be used to circumvent the rules applicable to non-final review. Wilson v. State, 913 So. 2d 1172, 1173 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). For an appellate court to review a non-final order by petition for certiorari, the petitioner must demonstrate that the trial court departed from the essential requirements ofthe law, thereby causing irreparable injury which cannot be adequately remedied on appeal followingfinal judgment. Belair v. Drew, 770 So. 2d 1164, 1165 (Fla. 2000). Here, despite valid concerns for preserving judicial economy, we must deny the petition because we lack certiorari jurisdiction where a non-final order denying leave to amend does not create irreparable harm irremediable on appeal. If the trial court made a legal error or relied on an inadequate factual record in denying leave to amend, that error is fully correctable on appeal. Amica Mut. Ins. C0. v. Pulte Home Corp., 100 So. 3d 268, 269 (Fla. Sth DCA 2012). Thus, the petition for writ of certiorari is hereby DENIED. However, if the trial court in the instant case fails to rectify the subject issues of this appeal at the trial level, the Plaintiff may have cause to ultimately file a plenary appeal pursuant to Florida law, upon the trial court’s final disposition ofthe case. I A ' WARD and FINE, JJ, concur. wneanaieare“re=» counsel.ornecoaum IDANYnuuvnor, _Qg!‘ !3"l3l.i%$El.;