Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

312 So. 2d 204

Hall v. Wojechowski

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1975-05-09

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 2007

3 state decisions

Relies on Surette v. Galiardo

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1975-05-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

WALDEN, Judge.

¶1This is a petition for certiorari to review a trial court order denying plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the pleadings. We grant certiorari, quash the order, and remand with instructions to permit the amendment.

¶2The record reveals that counsel inadvertently omitted certain claims for damages from the complaint. These claims had been included in a prior complaint and investigated by the defendants and, hence, there was no surprise or prejudice. The omission was discovered at pretrial conference and the motion to amend then made and denied.

¶3It is our judgment that the denial represented an abuse of discretion which can not be fully corrected by plenary appeal. We reverse upon authority of Surette v. *205Galiardo, 309 So.2d 253 (4th DCA Fla. 1975). See also Rule 1.190(e), F.R.C.P., which provides the tone and criteria to be employed in the consideration of amendments.

¶4We grant certiorari; quash the order denying plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.

¶5Certiorari granted, with directions.

DOWNEY and MAGER, JJ„ concur.
/312/so2d/204 · .json · Public domain