Rodriguez v. Di Lido Beach Hotel Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rodriguez v. Di Lido Beach Hotel Corp.

750 So. 2d 116, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 17292, 1999 WL 1259042

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 29, 1999

DocketNos. 99-774, 99-773

StatusPublished

This text of 750 So. 2d 116 (Rodriguez v. Di Lido Beach Hotel Corp.) 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

Rodriguez v. Di Lido Beach Hotel Corp., 750 So. 2d 116, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 17292, 1999 WL 1259042 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the present circumstances, in which the errors in the complaint were or should have been known by the defense before, but were not called to the plaintiffs or the court’s attention until after the statute of limitations had run, and there was no other prejudice, the principles stated in Salcedo v. Asociacion Cubana, Inc., 368 So.2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 342 (Fla.1979) and Sobel v. Jefferson Stores, Inc., 459 So.2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), require the reversal of the orders of dismissal entered below with directions to permit amendments to the complaint to reflect the correct location of the accident and the name of the responsible party defendant, with the amendments deemed to relate back to the date of the filing of the original complaint. See Argenbright v. J.M. Fields Co., 196 So.2d 190, 194 (Fla. 3d [117]*117DCA), cert. denied, 201 So.2d 895 (Fla.1967).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

In the present circumstances, in which the errors in the complaint were or should have been known by the defense before, but were not called to the plaintiffs or the court’s attention until after the statute of limitations had run, and there was no other prejudice, the principles stated in Salcedo v. Asociacion Cubana, Inc., 368 So.2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 342 (Fla.1979) and Sobel v. Jefferson Stores, Inc., 459 So.2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), require the reversal of the orders of dismissal entered below with directions to permit amendments to the complaint to reflect the correct location of the accident and the name of the responsible party defendant, with the amendments deemed to relate back to the date of the filing of the original complaint. See Argenbright v. J.M. Fields Co., 196 So.2d 190, 194 (Fla. 3d [117]*117DCA), cert. denied, 201 So.2d 895 (Fla.1967).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

750 So. 2d 116, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 17292, 1999 WL 1259042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-di-lido-beach-hotel-corp-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack