Sad v. Prestige Motor Car Imports, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sad v. Prestige Motor Car Imports, Inc.

904 So. 2d 466, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 6519, 2005 WL 1026961

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 4, 2005

DocketNo. 3D04-326

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 904 So. 2d 466 (Sad v. Prestige Motor Car Imports, 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

Sad v. Prestige Motor Car Imports, Inc., 904 So. 2d 466, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 6519, 2005 WL 1026961 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Claudio Sad (“Sad”) appeals an adverse final judgment, asserting the trial court erred in denying his motion for leave to amend and add a punitive damages claim to his complaint. We reverse.

Florida courts have consistently held that amendments to complaints should be liberally granted. Susan Fixel, Inc. v. Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc., 842 So.2d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Lasar Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Bachanov, 436 So.2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); see Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190.

Here, Sad timely filed the motion to amend his complaint to add a punitive damages claim three months before trial. The motion for punitive damages claim dealt with the same facts and circumstances as the underlying case and complaint and would not have prejudiced the defendant in the preparation of its case. Under these circumstances, it was error to deny Sad’s motion to amend. Wackenhut Protective Sys., Inc. v. Key Biscayne Commodore Club Condo. I, Inc., 350 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial on all issues.

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