Case Name: Renna PATEL, Appellant, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2002-03-08
Citations: 813 So. 2d 135
Docket Number: No. 5D01-1052
Parties: Renna PATEL, Appellant, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, Florida, Appellee.
Judges: PETERSON, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 813
Pages: 135–138

Head Matter:
Renna PATEL, Appellant, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, Florida, Appellee.
No. 5D01-1052.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
March 8, 2002.
Rehearing Denied April 15, 2002.
Jonathan Rotstein, Daytona Beach, and Bill McCabe, Longwood, for Appellant.
Michael A. Kundid and Theodore R. Do-ran, of Doran, Wolfe, Rost & Ansay, Day-tona Beach, for Appellee.

Opinion:
SHARP, W" J.
This is an appeal of an order which dismissed Patel's complaint with prejudice when she sought to add the Volusia County School Board (the "School Board") as a defendant in her negligence action, after the statute of limitations had expired. Patel had erroneously listed the County of Volusia (the "County") as the defendant in her initial complaint, and she argues on appeal that the relation-back doctrine should apply, claiming the error was merely a misnomer. We affirm.
The caption and body of the complaint referred to the County as the sole defendant, not the School Board. It was not until September of 2000, after the statute of limitations had run, that Patel filed a motion to amend the complaint and a First Amended Complaint, which referred to the School Board as a defendant.
An amended complaint does not relate back to the original filing date where it has the effect of adding a new party to the cause of action. West Volusia Hospital Authority v. Jones, 668 So.2d 635 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Johnson v. Taylor Rental Center, Inc., 458 So.2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Louis v. South Broward Hospital Dist., 353 So.2d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). The relation back doctrine may be applied to new parties only if the new party is sufficiently related to the original party so that no prejudice to the new party will occur. Darden v. Beverly Health and Rehabilitation, 763 So.2d 542 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Schwartz v. Wilt Chamberlain's, 725 So.2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
We affirm the trial court here because we do not find that the School Board and the County are sufficiently related to justify application of the relation-back doctrine. Although both are subdivisions of the State, they are independent agencies and the required identity of interest is not present. See Wilt Chamberlain's.
Patel also argues there was no prejudice in this case because the School Board was aware it was subject to a potential lawsuit because Patel filed a notice of claim in October of 1999. This notice and a denial of claim by the School Board, are conditions precedent to a lawsuit and must be presented within three years after the claim arises. § 768.28(6). In this case, the notice was not presented within three years, and there was no denial of claim by the School Board. In addition, the notice was served upon the Superintendent of Schools, not the "head of the agency," in this case the School Board, as is required by section 768.28(7).
In any event, knowledge of impending litigation should not necessarily impact the relation-back doctrine. Thomas v. Taylor Creek Marina of Fort Pierce, Inc. 520 So.2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). A claim is not necessarily a lawsuit. Rather it is a demand for something due as a matter of right Kuper v. Perry, 718 So.2d 859, 860 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). It does not follow that a law suit will always be filed.
Lastly, we observe that the only record evidence in this case which demonstrates that the School Board had actual knowl edge of the law suit was a notice of appearance filed by the School Board's attorney on December 7, 2000, which was also after the statute of limitations had expired.
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON, J., concurs.
GRIFFIN, J., dissents with opinion.