v.
Mastec, Inc., Etc.
State of Florida
Opinion filed January 12, 2022.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-1077
Lower Tribunal No. 18-42641
________________
Laura Esterbrook, etc.,
Appellant,
vs.
Mastec, Inc., etc., et al.,
Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mark
Blumstein, Judge.
Leighton Law, P.A.; Jay M. Levy, P.A., and Jay M. Levy, for appellant.
Meier, Bonner, Muszynski, O’Dell & Harvey, P.A., and Alexander Muszynski III and Cameron E. Shackelford (Longwood), for appellees.
Before LOGUE, SCALES and GORDO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Garrido v. Markus, Winter & Spitale Law Firm, 358 So. 2d 577, 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (recognizing that the general rule on the “relation back” of substituted party defendants in amended pleadings requires the plaintiff to demonstrate not only that the new and old defendants have such an identity of interest that the substituted defendant will not be prejudiced, but also “that his failure to join the correct parties at the outset had not been due to his own inexcusable neglect” (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 15.15)).
[*2]