cause for the delay. The dismissal precluded Appellant from re-filing due to the running of the statute of limitations. CONSIDERATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS As we recently noted, the effect of a 1999 amendment to Rule 1.070(j) was to grant courts “broad discretion to extend the time for service even when good cause has not been shown.” Britt v. City of Jacksonville, 874 So.2d 1196, 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (emphasis added) (citing To 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (Cope, J., concurring & dissenting) (opining that where there has been no showing of good cause or excusable neglect, but where statute of limitations has run, discretion should normally be exercised in favor of giving an extension of time for service of process); Nationsbank N.A. v. Ziner, 726 So.2d 364, 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
holding trial court abused its discretion by dropping defendant as a party based on plaintiffs failure to timely serve defendant because statute of limitations had run holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint holding if plaintiff does not serve report as to particular defendant trial court must dismiss that defendant from suit holding trial court abused its discretion by not extending the time for service where the statute of limitations had run and where service had been achieved at the time of the hearing on the motion to dismiss holding trial court abused its discretion by assessing sanctions based on inadmissible document