Darden v. Beverly Health & Rehab., 763 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
Darden v. Beverly Health & Rehab., 763 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Smith v. Bruster (fladistctapp, 2014-10-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Bruster
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Arn wine, 818 So.2d at 624 ; Darden v. Beverly Health & Rehab., 763 So.2d 542, 542-43 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Schwartz v. Wilt Chamberlain’s of Boca Raton, Ltd., 725 So.2d 451, 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Kozich v. Shahady, 702 So.2d 1289, 1291 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Eugene Smith v. Reginald Bruster
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Arnwine, 818 So. 2d at 624 ; Darden v. Beverly Health & Rehab., 763 So. 2d 542, 542-43 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Schwartz v. Wilt Chamberlain’s of Boca Raton, Ltd., 725 So. 2d 451, 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Kozich v. Shahady, 702 So. 2d 1289, 1291 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Estate of Youngblood v. Halifax Convalescent Center, Ltd.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Glenn Boggs and Conner, Nursing Home Tort Victims Rights and Remedies, 63 Fla. B.J. 2 at 11 (1989). [10] Section 400.023, Fla. Stat. (1997) provides: The action may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce such rights and to recover actual and punitive damages for any deprivation or infringement on the rights of the resident. [11] Thomas v. Northside Foods, Inc., 827 So.2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Darden v. Beverly Health & Rehabilitation, 763 So.2d 542, 543 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). [12] The statute in effect at the time the cause of action arises governs the action.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thomas v. Northside Foods, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
P. 1.190(c); Darden v. Beverly Health & Rehabilitation, 763 So.2d 542, 542-43 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (holding that relation back doctrine can be applied to an amended complaint that adds a new party to the lawsuit if the party “is sufficiently related to an original party such that the addition would not prejudice the new party”)(quoting Schwartz ex rel.
cited Cited "see" Arnwine v. Huntington Nat. Bank, NA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Darden v. Beverly Health & Rehab., 763 So.2d 542, 542 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Schwartz v. Wilt Chamberlain's of Boca Raton, Ltd., 725 So.2d 451, 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." May v. HCA Health Services of Florida, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Darden v. Beverly Health & Rehab., 763 So.2d 542, 543 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (same law firm, same corporate address, overlapping directors, and same registered agent); Schwartz ex rel.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rayner v. AIRCRAFT SPRUCE-ADVANTAGE INC.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Bank, N.A, 818 So.2d 621, 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); see also, Darden v. Beverly Health & Rehab., 763 So.2d, 542, 542-43 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Schwartz v. Wilt Chamberlain’s of Boca Raton, Ltd., 725 So.2d 451, 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Kozich v. Shahady, 702 So.2d 1289, 1291 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Michelin Reifenwerke, A.G. v. Roose, 462 So.2d 54, 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
William DARDEN, etc., Appellant,
v.
BEVERLY HEALTH & REHABILITATION, etc., Appellees.
5D99-3418.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Jul 28, 2000.
763 So. 2d 542
Dauksch.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

Shannon McLin Carlyle of Shannon McLin Carlyle, P.A., Leesburg, and Nolan Carter of Nolan Carter, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

James V. Etscorn and Robert C. Yee of Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Orlando, for Appellees.

DAUKSCH, J.

William Darden, in his capacity as the personal representative of the Estate of Vera Griffin, appeals the final order entered by the trial court dismissing his third amended complaint on the basis that the applicable statute of limitations had expired prior to the filing of the complaint. We reverse because the relation back doctrine authorized under rule 1.190 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure should have been applied in this case.

Rule 1.190(c) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the date of the filing of an amended complaint relates back to the date of the filing of the original complaint when the claim in the amended complaint arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the original pleading. This relation back doctrine can also be applied to an amended complaint which adds a new party to the lawsuit if the party "is sufficiently related to an original party such that the[*543] addition would not prejudice the new party." Schwartz ex rel. Schwartz v. Wilt Chamberlain's of Boca Raton, Ltd., 725 So.2d 451, 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). In that regard, the date of the filing of an amended complaint which adds a new party defendant to a pending lawsuit relates back to the date of the filing of the original complaint, thereby avoiding a statute of limitations bar, "where the new and former parties have an identity of interest which does not prejudice the opponent". Kozich v. Shahady, 702 So.2d 1289, 1291 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). See also Palm Beach County v. Savage Constr. Corp., 627 So.2d 1332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

Mr. Darden initially filed this wrongful death action against Beverly Health & Rehabilitation Services, Inc. (Beverly Health), d/b/a Park Lake Nursing and Rehabilitation Center (Park Lake). Nearly one year after the applicable two year statute of limitations period had expired, Mr. Darden filed a third amended complaint in which he alleged for the first time that Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc. d/b/a Beverly Gulf Coast-Florida, Inc. d/b/a Park Lake Nursing and Rehabilitation Center (Beverly Enterprises), not Beverly Health, was the proper corporate defendant. Upon the motion of Beverly Enterprises, the trial court dismissed the complaint, finding that the action was time barred.

The information before us reveals that Beverly Health is the parent corporation of Beverly Enterprises, Beverly Health actively defended this lawsuit in the trial court for nine months, both corporate defendants are represented by the same law firm, and printouts from the Secretary of State indicate that Beverly Health and Beverly Enterprises share the same corporate address, have several common corporate directors as well as the same registered agent. Additionally, Beverly Enterprises has failed, and thus apparently is unable, to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the substitution of the named corporate defendant. These facts support the conclusion that Beverly Health and Beverly Enterprises possess identities of interest sufficient to justify application of the relation back doctrine. Accordingly, we reverse the order dismissing Mr. Darden's third amended complaint and remand this matter for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

HARRIS and PLEUS, JJ., concur.