Neu v. Turgel
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Sekot Laboratories, Inc. v. Gleason (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
- Smith v. City of Panama City (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)
- Michelle Gerbino v. Isle of Paradise B, Inc., Gus Nasiell, Jean-Paul and Marie Berthiaume, Kasey and Kevin McClung and Anthony Vitale (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)
- King David of Sunny Isles Condominium Association, Inc. v. Alex Bushoy (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024)
- COMPREHENSIVE SPINE CENTER, LLC a/a/o ROY GARNER v. EQUITY INSURANCE CO. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)
- Reverse Mortgage Solution, Inc. v. The Unknown Heirs, Devisees, Grantees, Assignees, Lienors, Creditors, Trustees, etc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)
- Fane Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida (11th Cir. 2013)
- Kruger v. Kruger (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)
- Gibbons v. BLAKE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
- Feldman v. Renault Motors (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
- Intermodal Transportation Services, Inc. v. Kane Furniture (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Howard M. NEU, Appellant,
v.
Judy TURGEL, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Frank Wolland, North Miami, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and FERGUSON, JJ.
*217 FERGUSON, Judge.
The order dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice for failure to timely amend is reversed on authority of Edward L. Nezelek, Inc. v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 413 So.2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 424 So.2d 763 (Fla. 1982). Once a court has dismissed a complaint with leave to amend, it cannot subsequently dismiss with prejudice for failure to timely amend unless (1) separate notice is given to plaintiff of the hearing on the motion to dismiss with prejudice, or (2) the order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend specifically provides that on failure to amend within the stated time, the cause will be dismissed without further notice. Id. Neither condition was satisfied here.[1]
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
NOTES
[1] An amended complaint was filed five days outside the fifteen-day allotted time, but eight months before the order of dismissal with prejudice was entered.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.