LAURA ESTERBROOK, etc. v. MASTEC, INC., etc.
This text of LAURA ESTERBROOK, etc. v. MASTEC, INC., etc. (LAURA ESTERBROOK, etc. v. MASTEC, INC., etc.) 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.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed January 12, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-1077 Lower Tribunal No. 18-42641 ________________
Laura Esterbrook, etc., Appellant,
vs.
Mastec, Inc., etc., et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mark Blumstein, Judge.
Leighton Law, P.A.; Jay M. Levy, P.A., and Jay M. Levy, for appellant.
Meier, Bonner, Muszynski, O’Dell & Harvey, P.A., and Alexander Muszynski III and Cameron E. Shackelford (Longwood), for appellees.
Before LOGUE, SCALES and GORDO, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Garrido v. Markus, Winter & Spitale Law Firm, 358 So. 2d
577, 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (recognizing that the general rule on the
“relation back” of substituted party defendants in amended pleadings
requires the plaintiff to demonstrate not only that the new and old defendants
have such an identity of interest that the substituted defendant will not be
prejudiced, but also “that his failure to join the correct parties at the outset
had not been due to his own inexcusable neglect” (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal
Practice, § 15.15)).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
LAURA ESTERBROOK, etc. v. MASTEC, INC., etc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laura-esterbrook-etc-v-mastec-inc-etc-fladistctapp-2022.