DocketNumber: 88-2889
Citation Numbers: 546 So. 2d 18
Judges: Schwartz, C.J., and Cope, J., and Gavin K. Letts, Associate Judge
Filed Date: 6/6/1989
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/1/2019
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
*19 Hoffman & Hertzig and Carl Hoffman, Coral Gables, for appellants.
Conrad, Scherer & James and Joseph S. Kashi, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE, J., and GAVIN K. LETTS, Associate Judge.
PER CURIAM.
After the reversal of the dismissal of the amended complaint which was ordered in Anderson v. Brown, 524 So.2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), review denied, 531 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 1988), two of the named plaintiffs, the appellants Kiehl and Smith, filed a second amended complaint which alleged claims on additional grounds against three of the already named party defendants, the appellees, Brown, Motluck and Nehleber. The trial judge dismissed these claims on statute of limitations grounds. We reverse.
It seems clear to us that the so-called "additional claims" were fairly covered and referred to in the allegations by these plaintiffs, among others, against these defendants, among others, which had been asserted in the admittedly-timely filed amended complaint. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190 provides that an "amendment ... relate[s] back to the date of the original pleading" whenever the claim contained in the amendment arises out of the "conduct, transaction or occurrence" attempted to be set forth in the initial complaint. The latter condition is satisfied, in turn, if, as stated in Keel v. Brown, 162 So.2d 321, 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964), cert. denied, 166 So.2d 753 (Fla. 1964), in quoting from an earlier edition of Moore's,
the original pleading gives fair notice of the general fact situation out of which the claim or defense arises.
See J. Moore, A. Vestal & P. Kurland, Moore's Manual Federal Practice and Procedure § 9.09[9] (rev. ed. 1988). Put another way,
an amendment which merely makes more specific what has already been alleged generally, or which changes the legal theory of the action, will relate back even though the statute of limitations has run in the interim.
Keel, 162 So.2d at 323, quoting from Moore's second edition. See J. Moore, A. Vestal & P. Kurland, supra, § 9.09[9]. In our view, these rules apply to each of the claims specifically asserted in the second amended complaint by the appellants against the appellees. Accordingly, the judgment under review is
Reversed.
SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE, J., concur.
GAVIN K. LETTS, Associate Judge, dissents.
Leon Kopel v. Bernardo Kopel , 229 So. 3d 812 ( 2017 )
Caduceus Properties, LLC v. William G. Graney, P.E. , 137 So. 3d 987 ( 2014 )
Palm Beach County School Board, etc. v. Janie Doe 1, etc. , 210 So. 3d 41 ( 2017 )
Mender v. Kauderer, Etc. , 143 So. 3d 1011 ( 2014 )
Flores v. RISCOMP INDUSTRIES, INC. , 35 So. 3d 146 ( 2010 )
Dausman v. Hart , 898 So. 2d 213 ( 2005 )
Ron's Quality Towing, Inc. v. Southeastern Bank of Fla. , 765 So. 2d 134 ( 2000 )
Palafrugell Holdings, Inc. v. Cassel , 825 So. 2d 937 ( 2001 )
Dailey v. Leshin , 792 So. 2d 527 ( 2001 )
Lefebvre v. James , 697 So. 2d 918 ( 1997 )
In Re 1992 Pontiac Firebird , 47 So. 3d 344 ( 2010 )
Armiger v. Associated Outdoor Clubs, Inc. , 48 So. 3d 864 ( 2010 )
Holley v. Innovative Tech. of Destin, Inc. , 803 So. 2d 749 ( 2001 )
Maraj v. North Broward Hosp. Dist. , 989 So. 2d 682 ( 2008 )
Anderson v. Epstein , 202 So. 3d 893 ( 2016 )
ODALYS HERRERA v. JARDEN CORPORATION, TONYA JARVIS and JOHN ... ( 2022 )
Kelly Mitchell v. Applebee's Services, Inc. ( 2019 )
Elizabeth Halveland, individually etc. v. Florida ... , 273 So. 3d 227 ( 2019 )