REUVEN TAKO AND JACKIE TAKO, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
MAYER ROTHKOPF INDUSTRIES, INC., ETC. ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed a lower court's order quashing service of process on two defendant corporations. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the long-arm statutes, which allow for service on non-resident defendants, applied to their case because the machine causing the injury was manufactured before the effective dates of the relevant statutes.
No, the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege jurisdictional facts to justify service under the applicable long-arm statutes. The machine was manufactured prior to the effective dates of the statutes, and the plaintiffs did not meet their burden to show the statutes applied.
[1] A plaintiff must clearly show that a machine was manufactured after the effective date of a long-arm statute to make the statute applicable to a nonresident defendant.
[2] A complaint must sufficiently allege jurisdictional facts to justify service upon a defendant under Section 48.181, Florida Statutes.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the plaintiffs, whose complaint, in pertinent part, alleged that the defectively manufactured machine which caused injury to Reuven Tako was sold by the defendant manufacturers/brokers to Reuven Tako’s employer in 1972, obviously could not show that the machine was manufactured after July 1, 1973, the effective date of Section 48.193, Florida Statutes (1979), and otherwise failed to satisfy their burden to clearly show that the machine was manufactured after July 1, 1970, the effective date of the predecessor statute, Section 48.182, Florida Statutes (1971), so as to make either of these long-arm statutes authorizing service upon nonresident defendants applicable to the present case”
Explains the failure to meet the statutory requirements for service under the long-arm statutes due to the manufacturing date of the machine.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs, the Takos, alleged that a defectively manufactured machine injured Reuven Tako. The machine was sold to Tako's employer in 1972. The T…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jurisdictional Facts cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the Takos, the plaintiffs below, from a non-final order quashing service of process on Mayer Rothkopf Industries, Inc. and Mayer & Cie. We have jurisdiction. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i).
We affirm the order of the trial court upon a holding that (1) the plaintiffs, whose complaint, in pertinent part, alleged that the defectively manufactured machine which caused injury to Reuven Tako was sold by the defendant manufacturers/brokers to Reuven Tako’s employer in 1972, obviously could not show that the machine was manufactured after July 1, 1973, the effective date of Section 48.193, Florida Statutes (1979), and otherwise failed to satisfy their burden to clearly show that the machine was manufactured after July 1, 1970, the effective date of the predecessor statute, Section 48.182, Florida Statutes (1971), so as to make either of these long-arm statutes authorizing service upon nonresident defendants applicable to the present case, see Babcock v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 371 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Yachts v. Ray Richard, Inc., 347 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Joyce Bros. Storage & Van Co. v. Piechalak, 343 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Griffis v.
J. C. Penney Co., Inc., 333 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); (2) the plaintiffs have similarly failed to sufficiently allege jurisdictional facts to clearly justify service upon these defendants under Section 48.181, Florida Statutes (1979) (in effect since 1957), see Electro Engineering Products Co., Inc. v. Lewis, 352 So. 2d 862 (Fla.1977); Elmex Corp. v. Atlantic Federal Savings and Loan Association of Ft. Lauderdale, 325 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); (3) if, ar-guendo, the plaintiffs’ pleading had been sufficient to make Section 48.181, Florida Statutes (1979), applicable ab initio, shifting the burden to the defendants to show, by prima facie proof, its inapplicability, Electro Engineering Products Co., Inc. v. Lewis, supra, the defendants made the required showing which was not overcome by the plaintiffs.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weatherhead Co. v. Coletti, 392 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…head was made and distributed sometime in the 1950s well before the 1970 effective date of thq original statutory predecessor of Section 48.193. Thus, the provision invoked below could not apply to this case. Tako v. Mayer Rothkopf Industries, Inc., 388 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) and cases cited. For these reasons, the order under review is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant the motion to dismiss, without prejudice to any further attempt by the appellees to perfect service on Weather…
-
Jamil v. Acosta, 697 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…nonresidents did business as individuals, as opposed to their conduct as officers of corporation). It is well settled that a complaint must “sufficiently allege jurisdictional facts to clearly justify service”. Tako v. Mayer Rothkopf Indus., Inc., 388 So. 2d 1092, 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Accordingly, the order below denying the appellant’s motion to quash service of process and ordering a responsive pleading is reversed and the cause remanded for dismissal of the second amended complaint for lack of persona…
-
Hunter v. The Challenge Mach. Co., 481 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…e Co., 264 So. 2d 419 (Fla.1972); Weatherhead Co. v. Coletti, 392 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980), approved, 409 So. 2d 1026 (Fla.1982); Mac Millan-Bloedel, Ltd. v. Canada, 391 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Tako v. Mayer Rothkopf Industries, Inc., 388 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980). Section 48.181, Florida Statutes (1983) governs and this statute has been interpreted to contain [*988] a “connexity” requirement. The wrong or injury must arise out of a transaction connected with or incidental to the foreign c…
Authorities Cited
- The Elmex Corp. v. Atl. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Fort Lauderdale, 325 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Electro Eng'g Prods. Co., Inc. v. Lewis, 352 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1977)
- Coleman v. State, 333 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Joyce Bros. Storage & VAN Co. v. Piechalak, 343 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Palmer Johnson Yachts v. RAY Richard, Inc., 347 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Valerio v. State, 371 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)