Costa v. Sirimanne
Eduardo Costa appeals from a judgment entered after a court trial, contending that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Costa’s motion to amend his complaint to add Sol Dominicana Airlines (Sol) as a plaintiff. Benedict Sirimanne and CSDS Aircraft Sales & Leasing, Inc. (CSDS), also appeal, contending that insufficient evidence supports the judgment in favor of Costa and against Sirimanne as individuals in Costa’s breach of contract action and that the trial court erred in denying their motion for attorney fees.[1] We conclude that the court erred in denying Costa’s motion to amend to add Sol as a plaintiff to the complaint because Sirimanne and CSDS fail to articulate any facts or legal theories that would have been changed by the proposed amendment and Sirimanne and CSDS would not have been prejudiced by the proposed amendment. We also conclude that sufficient evidence supports the judgment in favor of Costa and against Sirimanne as individuals. We reverse with directions to the trial court to issue an order allowing Costa to amend the complaint to add Sol as a plaintiff. Because we are reversing the trial court’s order denying Costa’s motion to amend the complaint with respect to the causes of action regarding the Lease/Purchase Agreement and therefore the prevailing party will be determined on retrial, we affirm the trial court’s order denying Sirimanne and CSDS’s motion for attorney fees. We affirm the judgment in favor of Costa on his cause of action for breach of contract.
Comments on Costa v. Sirimanne