Court Opinion

ID: 9397053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 15:04:09.972478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:21.542168
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                          Opinion filed May 24, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-0754
                       Lower Tribunal No. 19-186-K
                          ________________

                        James Crawford, et al.,
                                 Appellants,

                                     vs.

                        Monroe County, et al.,
                                 Appellees.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Mark H. Jones,
Judge.

     Kevin Hoyes, Attorney, PA, and Kevin Michael Hoyes, for appellants.

      Bob Shillinger, County Attorney and Cynthia L. Hall, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee Monroe County; Bryant Miller Olive P.A., and
Frederick J. Springer (Tallahassee) and Elizabeth W. Neiberger, for appellee
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority.

Before SCALES, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      This appeal involves a convoluted procedural history, including

amended and supplemental complaints, disqualification of a trial judge,

reconsiderations of prior orders, and conflicting orders of dismissal and

orders permitting amendment that seem near impossible to reconcile.

Because, in examining the record, we conclude that Crawford and the other

appellants didn’t abuse the privilege to amend, they should be permitted to

file an amended complaint.

      The privilege to amend has not been abused, and an opportunity to

amend would not be futile on its face or prejudice the opposing party. GEICO

Gen. Ins. Co. v. A & C Med. Ctr., Inc., 357 So. 3d 233, 234–35 (Fla. 3d DCA

2023); see also Fla. Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc. v. State, 832 So. 2d 911, 915

(Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (reversing and remanding dismissal with prejudice in

part where “Appellants have not abused their privilege to amend, and there

is no showing that an amendment would prejudice Appellees”); Obenschain

v. Williams, 750 So. 2d 771, 772–73 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (“Dismissal with

prejudice is a severe sanction which should be granted only when the

pleader has failed to state a cause of action, and it conclusively appears that

there is no possible way to amend the complaint to state a cause of action.”).

To the contrary, a dismissal without prejudice and a new, single amended

complaint would move the matter toward resolution by cutting through the

                                      2
procedural morass and allow consideration of one pleading. We remand

with instructions to dismiss the operative complaint and supplemental

complaint without prejudice, and allow appellants an opportunity to file a

single, amended complaint. We note, however, that we take no position on

the merits of any claims that may be alleged.

     Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

                                     3