Broward Care at Home — Fourth DCA reversed leave to add punitive-damages claims because the proposed complaint was filed too late

Case
Broward Care at Home, LLC, Atlantic Home Health Agency of South Florida, LLC, Homecare Partners Management, LLC, David Chris Rucker, Ryan Ruskin, Brian Johnson, and James Sprigs v. Andrew Shook and Assist Nursing Agency, LLC
Court
Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
Judge
May; Gross; Shepherd
Date Decided
October 21, 2026
Docket No.
4D2026-0220
Topics
Punitive Damages, Pleading Amendments, Civil Procedure
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Andrew Shook sought leave in the Broward County Circuit Court to amend his complaint against Broward Care at Home, LLC, and the other appellants to assert punitive-damages claims. Circuit Judge Carlos A. Rodriguez granted the motion.

The defendants appealed the nonfinal order. Shook had not attached the proposed amended complaint to his motion and did not file it until seven days before the hearing.

The Court’s Holding

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed. It held that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190 required the proposed amended pleading to be attached to the motion and served at least twenty days before the hearing.

Because Shook neither attached the proposed amended complaint to his motion nor filed it more than seven days before the hearing, the order granting leave to assert punitive-damages claims could not stand. The court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Key Takeaways

  • A party seeking leave to amend a complaint to assert punitive damages must attach the proposed amended pleading to the motion.
  • The proposed pleading must be served at least twenty days before the hearing under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190.
  • Filing the proposed amended complaint only seven days before the hearing did not satisfy the rule.

Why It Matters

The decision underscores that Florida courts must enforce the procedural prerequisites for adding punitive-damages claims. Even apart from the merits of such claims, failure to provide the proposed pleading and the required advance notice warrants reversal of an order permitting the amendment.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top