Stirman v. Michael

2 Citing cases

  1. Russ v. Williams

    159 So. 3d 408 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 6 times
    Affirming that amendment to change defendant in tort suit from husband to wife did not relate back because spouses are "separate individuals" and "each spouse has his or her own legal rights and obligations"

    SeeFla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(c) (“When a claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment shall relate back to the date of the original pleading.”). The cases in which this “identity of interest” exception has been applied to allow the addition of a new party defendant after the expiration of the statute of limitations involved the substitution of one corporate entity for another, see, e.g., Stirman v. Michael Graves Design Grp., Inc., 983 So.2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Williams v. Avery Dev. Co.-Boca Raton, 910 So.2d 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Arnwine, supra; Darden v. Beverly Health & Rehab., 763 So.2d 542 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Schwartz, supra;Kozich v. Shahady, 702 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Argenbright v. J.M. Fields Co., 196 So.2d 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), or merely changed the capacity in which a defendant has been sued, see, e.g., Cabot v. Clearwater Constr. Co., 89 So.2d 662 (Fla.1956); Galuppi v. Viele, 232 So.2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). The gist of the exception is that the relation-back doctrine applies when the new defendant is essentially one in the same as the existing defendant.

  2. Bates v. Betty Ross Co., Inc.

    46 So. 3d 615 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 5 times

    Bates contends that it was an abuse of the trial court's discretion to terminate arbitration and to refuse to allow the Amended Claim in contravention of Florida's liberal rule of allowing amendment of pleadings where there is no prejudice to the opposing party. See Stirman v. Michael Graves Design Group, Inc., 983 So.2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). In determining whether or not certain issues fall within the scope of an arbitration agreement, the scope of the agreement should be resolved in favor of arbitration, not against it.