JAMES CRAWFORD
v.
MONROE COUNTY

Fla. 3d DCA | 2023-05-24
No. 22-0754
357 So. 3d 233 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2023) Positive Treatment
Cited by 9 cases

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.

Holding

Appellants did not abuse their privilege to amend and should be permitted to file a single amended complaint where dismissal without prejudice and consolidation of pleadings would resolve the procedural morass without prejudicing the opposing party.

Headnotes

[1] Dismissal with prejudice is an appropriate sanction only when it conclusively appears that no possible amendment to the complaint could state a cause of action, and a cou…

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
Key Quotes

“Dismissal with prejudice is a severe sanction which should be granted only when the pleader has failed to state a cause of action, and it conclusively appears that there is no possible way to amend the complaint to state a cause of action.”

Court explaining the strict standard for dismissal with prejudice under Florida law.
Facts & Procedural History

The case involved a convoluted procedural history with amended and supplemental complaints, disqualification of a trial judge, reconsiderations of pri…

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.

Topics
Prejudice To Opposing Party Futility Of Amendment

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prejudice To Opposing Party cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Opinion filed May 24, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-0754 Lower Tribunal No. 19-186-K

________________

James Crawford, et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

Monroe County, et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Mark H. Jones, Judge. Kevin Hoyes, Attorney, PA, and Kevin Michael Hoyes, for appellants. Bob Shillinger, County Attorney and Cynthia L. Hall, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee Monroe County; Bryant Miller Olive P.A., and Frederick J. Springer (Tallahassee) and Elizabeth W. Neiberger, for appellee Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority. Before SCALES, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. This appeal involves a convoluted procedural history, including amended and supplemental complaints, disqualification of a trial judge, reconsiderations of prior orders, and conflicting orders of dismissal and orders permitting amendment that seem near impossible to reconcile. Because, in examining the record, we conclude that Crawford and the other appellants didn’t abuse the privilege to amend, they should be permitted to file an amended complaint.

The privilege to amend has not been abused, and an opportunity to amend would not be futile on its face or prejudice the opposing party. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. A & C Med. Ctr., Inc., 357 So. 3d 233, 234–35 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023); see also Fla. Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc. v. State, 832 So. 2d 911, 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (reversing and remanding dismissal with prejudice in part where “Appellants have not abused their privilege to amend, and there is no showing that an amendment would prejudice Appellees”); Obenschain v. Williams, 750 So. 2d 771, 772–73 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (“Dismissal with prejudice is a severe sanction which should be granted only when the pleader has failed to state a cause of action, and it conclusively appears that there is no possible way to amend the complaint to state a cause of action.”). To the contrary, a dismissal without prejudice and a new, single amended complaint would move the matter toward resolution by cutting through the procedural morass and allow consideration of one pleading. We remand with instructions to dismiss the operative complaint and supplemental complaint without prejudice, and allow appellants an opportunity to file a single, amended complaint. We note, however, that we take no position on the merits of any claims that may be alleged.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Crawford v. Monroe Cnty., 357 So. 3d 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
    …amend, they should be permitted to file an amended complaint. The privilege to amend has not been abused, and an opportunity to amend would not be futile on its face or prejudice the opposing party. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. A & C Med. Ctr., Inc., 357 So. 3d 233, 234–35 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023); see also Fla. Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc. v. State, 832 So. 2d 911, 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (reversing and remanding dismissal with prejudice in part where “Appellants have not abused their privilege to amend, and there…
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cent. Therapy Ctr., Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
    …3d DCA Apr. 12, 2023) (holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Geico’s motion for leave to amend its answer to add one affirmative defense, res judicata or collateral estoppel); GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. A & C Med. Ctr., Inc., 357 So. 3d 233, 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Geico’s motion for leave to amend its answer before the case was set for trial to add one affirmative defense, res judicata or collateral estoppel); Progressiv…
  • Chhs Hosp. Co. LLC v. Harmon (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)
    …Clampitt. Therefore, Mr. Clampitt would not be unduly prejudiced by allowing such amendment at this time . . . ."). And there is no indication that "the parties [had] engaged in protracted discovery." See GEICO Gen. Ins. v. A & C Med. Ctr., Inc., 357 So. 3d 233, 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023). There is no reason to believe that the amendment unfairly prejudiced Harmon's ability to defend against the suit. The remaining permissible reasons to deny a motion to amend a complaint are likewise inapplicable. CHHS did…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw