Barletta v. SGS Government Programs, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barletta v. SGS Government Programs, Inc.

782 So. 2d 903, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2484, 2001 WL 219317

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 7, 2001

DocketNo. 3D99-3168

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 782 So. 2d 903 (Barletta v. SGS Government Programs, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barletta v. SGS Government Programs, Inc., 782 So. 2d 903, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2484, 2001 WL 219317 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Barletta, S.A., appeals an order dismissing a fifth amended complaint with prejudice. We reverse. Barletta has twice amended the complaint as to the other defendants. However, Barletta only amended the complaint once against defendant SGS Government Programs, Inc. Notwithstanding this fact, the trial court denied its motion to amend and dismissed the fifth amended complaint. “[I]t is well-settled that even where an opportunity to amend has been previously granted, it is an abuse of discretion to dismiss a complaint with prejudice where the complaint can be amended to state a cause of action and the privilege to amend has not been abused.” National Loan Investors, L.P. v. Joymar Assoc., 767 So.2d 549, 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). As Barletta has not abused the amendment privilege, it should be permitted to amend the complaint: it appears the complaint can be amended to state a cause of action for negligence as to defendant SGS Government Programs, see Moransais v. Heathman, 744 So.2d 973 (Fla.1999), and to further amend the contract claim to allege its status as a third-party beneficiary. See Security Mut. Cas. Co. v. Pacura, 402 So.2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Barletta, S.A., appeals an order dismissing a fifth amended complaint with prejudice. We reverse. Barletta has twice amended the complaint as to the other defendants. However, Barletta only amended the complaint once against defendant SGS Government Programs, Inc. Notwithstanding this fact, the trial court denied its motion to amend and dismissed the fifth amended complaint. “[I]t is well-settled that even where an opportunity to amend has been previously granted, it is an abuse of discretion to dismiss a complaint with prejudice where the complaint can be amended to state a cause of action and the privilege to amend has not been abused.” National Loan Investors, L.P. v. Joymar Assoc., 767 So.2d 549, 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). As Barletta has not abused the amendment privilege, it should be permitted to amend the complaint: it appears the complaint can be amended to state a cause of action for negligence as to defendant SGS Government Programs, see Moransais v. Heathman, 744 So.2d 973 (Fla.1999), and to further amend the contract claim to allege its status as a third-party beneficiary. See Security Mut. Cas. Co. v. Pacura, 402 So.2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

782 So. 2d 903, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2484, 2001 WL 219317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barletta-v-sgs-government-programs-inc-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack