Topic: Pleadings

Rules Updates – New E-discovery and E-mail Service Rules Effective September 1st

Per the Florida Supreme Court’s Order amending the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure to implement service by email, the following rules have been updated: 1.080 Service of Pleadings, Orders, and Documents 1.170 Counterclaims and Crossclaims 1.351 Production of Documents and Things Without Deposition 1.410 Subpoena 1.440 Setting Action for Trial 1.442 Proposals for Settlement 1.510… Read more

Absolute Right to Amend Complaint Until an Answer Is Filed – Williams v. Gaffin Industrial Services

In this wrongful death case, the trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on the basis that the plaintiff had previously elected the State’s worker’s compensation remedy, and that this election barred the current claim.  At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the trial court did not permit the plaintiff to amend the complaint. … Read more

Date Stamp Creates Presumption of Filing Date – Strax Rejuvenation and Aesthetics Institute, Inc. v. Shield, Case No. SC10-57 (Fla. Sept. 30 2010)

Interpreting Rule 1.080(e), which provides that “[t]he date of filing is that shown on the face of the paper by the judge’s notation or the clerk’s time stamp, whichever is earlier,” the Florida Supreme Court holds that the clerks stamp only creates a rebuttable presumption of the date of filing, and is not conclusive, for purposes of… Read more

LUZ ELISABETH DIAZ v. BELL MICROPRODUCTS-FUTURE TECH, INC., 35 Fla. L. Wkly D1931a (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 25, 2010)

This guaranty case states the simple rule that “pleadings are required to be in the English language.” The lender’s complaint against the borrower attached a copy of the guaranty in Spanish, a “Garantia Personal.”  It was not translated into English. The trial court granted summary judgment for the lender. The appellate court reversed, reasoning that the… Read more

STEPHANIE J. CROWN AND JOHN J. CROWN v. CHASE HOME FINANCE, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D1703d (Fla. 5th DCA July 30, 2010)

In this case, the defendants were sued and initially filed a “bare bones” pro se answer.  Months later, the plaintiff served a motion for summary judgment.  A week later, and before the hearing, the defendants served an amended answer with affirmative defenses, which the motion for summary judgment did not address.  The trial court denied… Read more

Quality Roof Svc’s v. Intervest National Bank, 34 Fla. L. Wkly. D2205 (Fla. 4th DCA October 28, 2009)

In this foreclosure action, Quality Roof Services (QRS) was named as a co-defendant based on a properly recorded construction lien.  QRS timely answered the Complaint, but did not assert any affirmative defenses or raise any cross-claims. The property owner consented to the foreclosure and the case was set for a final summary judgment hearing.  Without filing… Read more