Nalley v. Rotstein
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Per curiam
We reverse the lower court’s order dismissing the suit for lack of prosecution. The filing of the motion to amend the complaint and the proposed amended complaint within the sixty-day grace period was sufficient to avoid dismissal. Chemrock Corp. v. Tampa Elec. Co., 71 So.3d 786 (Fla.2011). The trial court erred by striking the motion and proposed amendment as a sham. Yunger v. Oliver, 803 So.2d 884, 886 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (citing Destiny Constr. Co. v. Martin K Eby Constr., 662 So.2d 388, 390 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)); see also Furst v. Blackman, 819 So.2d 222, 225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“A sham…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Chemrock Corp. v. Tampa Electric Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 2011
- Destiny Const. v. Martin K. Eby ConstDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1995
- Menke v. Southland Specialties Corp.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994
- Yunger v. OliverDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2002
- Furst v. BlackmanDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2002
3Cited by1 opinion
- JPMorgan Chase Bank v. SarmientoDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2013