we conclude that stay is a more appropriate synonym than extinguish. A personal injury action will not survive if the injury resulted in the plaintiffs death, as in this case, but a stay will allow time for the substitution of a party and the filing of an amended or supplemental pleading. This is consistent with the direction of rule 1.190(a) that leave to amend “shall be given freely when justice so requires.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(a). In cases dealing substantively with abatement, the term is more properly understood as a stay of the proceedings rather than an automatic dismissal. See, e.g., Anderson v. Helen Ellis Mem’l Hosp. Found., Inc., 66 So.3d 1095 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (using the terms abate and stay interchangeably); Relinger v. Fox, 55 So.3d 638, 639-40 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (<HOLDING>). This court has not reached a contrary
holding that the appellant had an adequate remedy by appeal for his discovery violation allegations holding that delay caused by or consented to by a defendant is not unreasonable holding that abatement of action was properly renewable by certiorari because an appeal from an eventual final judgment would not be an adequate remedy for the delay caused by abatement holding that where plaintiffs had an alternative remedy the court would not substitute its judgment for that of congress by creating an implied right of action holding that an adequate remedy exists if the plaintiff could assert the issues sought to be declared as a defense in an action brought by the defendant