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

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 4, 2005·No. No. 3D04-326·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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.

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

Pincite

904 So. 2d 466 (Sad v. Prestige Motor Car Imports, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related