Thompson v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc.

Decision Date16 March 1993
Docket NumberNo. 92-1183,92-1183
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals
Parties18 Fla. L. Week. D774 Linda G. THOMPSON, Appellant, v. PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

Stephen J. Pajcic, III, and Robert J. Link of Pajcic & Pajcic, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellant.

Charles B. Carter of Jones, Carter, Singer & Cervone, P.A., Gainesville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of an order which denied her motion for rehearing requesting that she be permitted to amend her complaint further. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion and, accordingly, reverse.

Initially, appellant filed a complaint in which she alleged that she had been injured as the result of negligence on the part of the defendants. Appellee was not among the defendants named. Subsequently, appellant sought leave to file an amended complaint which, among other things, added a count against appellee. That motion was granted.

Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the count of the amended complaint naming it as a defendant on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. The trial court granted appellee's motion to dismiss, noting what it believed to be the legal deficiencies of the claim. However, without explanation, the trial court dismissed the count against appellee with prejudice.

Appellant timely filed a motion for rehearing, in which she requested that the trial court amend the order granting appellee's motion to dismiss, so that the dismissal would be without prejudice. Appellant also requested that the trial court permit her to file a second amended complaint, a copy of which was attached to the motion. Again without explanation, the trial court denied the motion for rehearing. This was error.

Our rules of civil procedure evidence a clear policy that, absent exceptional circumstances, requests for leave to amend pleadings be granted. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.190(a). "Although granting leave to amend rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, all doubts should be resolved in favor of allowing amendment. It is the public policy of this state to freely allow amendments to pleadings so that cases may be resolved upon their merits." Adams v. Knabb Turpentine Co., 435 So.2d 944, 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). "As a general rule, refusal to allow amendment of a pleading constitutes an abuse of discretion unless it clearly appears that allowing the amendment would prejudice...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • EAC USA, INC. v. Kawa
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 11, 2001
    ...freely when justice so requires." All doubts must be resolved in favor of allowing amendment of pleadings. Thompson v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 615 So.2d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The failure to permit amendment constitutes an abuse of discretion unless it clearly appears the amendment wou......
  • Morgan v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 19, 2016
    ...to amend, because the denied motion at issue was the first time she sought to amend her answer. See Thompson v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 615 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Therefore, the question is whether Appellant's proposed amended answer would prejudice the Bank or would be futi......
  • Undereducated Foster Children of Florida v. Florida Senate
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 25, 1997
    ...of court [for the filing of an amended pleading] shall be freely given when justice so requires."); Thompson v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 615 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), and the lack of any demonstration in the record that amendment would be futile, that the appellants had abused t......
  • Morgan v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, CASE NO. 1D15-2401
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 28, 2016
    ...to amend, because the denied motion at issue was the first time she sought to amend her answer. See Thompson v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 615 So. 2d 796, 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Therefore, the question is whether Appellant's proposed amended answer would prejudice the Bank or would be fut......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT