AMEC Civil, LLC v. PTG Construction Services Co.
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Wildflower, LLC v. St. Johns River Water Management District (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)
- Beepot v. J.P. Morgan Chase National Corporate Services, Inc. (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2014)
- Lawrence T. Newman v. Heritage Village West Condominium Association, Inc. (11th Cir. 2023)
- Tatieta v. Grimaldi Deep Sea Spa (Grimaldi) (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2023)
- CHAUDHARI v. PARKER (District Court, D. New Jersey 2021)
- South Broward Hospital District v. Elap Services, LLC (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2020)
- Five Percent Nutrition, LLC v. Get Fit Fast Supplements, LLC (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2019)
- MBlock Investors, LLC v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)
- MBlock Investors, LLC v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)
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 of the Court
AMEC Civil, LLC appeals a final summary judgment in favor of Parson’s Transportation Group, Inc. and PTG Construction Services Company, appellees, on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds. Based upon this court’s prior opinion in AMEC Civil, LLC v. State, Detriment of Transportation, 41 So.3d 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (AMEC I), we agree with the trial court that this action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Accordingly, we affirm.
(1) identity of the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of the parties; and (4) identity of the quality in the person for or against whom the claim is made.
AMEC I, 41 So.3d at 239-^0. We find that all four conditions are satisfied here. As to the identity of the parties, we conclude that there is an identity of the parties here because appellees are privies of the Florida Department of Transportation. The Florida Supreme Court has explained that “[a] judgment on the merits rendered in a former suit between the same parties or their privies, upon the same cause of action, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive....” Kimbrell v. Paige, 448 So.2d 1009, 1012 (Fla. 1984) (quoting Wade v. Clower, 94 Fla. 817, 114 So. 548, 552 (1927) (emphasis supplied)). “A privy is one who is identified with the litigant in interest.” Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. McKinnie, 513 So.2d 748, 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). “Privity is a mutuality of interest, an identification of interest of one person with another, and includes privity of contract, the connection or relationship which exists between contracting parties.” Radie v. Allstate Ins. Co., 758 F.Supp. 1464, 1467 (M.D.Fla. 1991). Further, identity of parties exists if the third parties [PTG & Parsons], as here, had indemnity obligations to the Department of Transportation. Massey v. David, 831 So.2d 226, 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
AFFIRMED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.