JANE DOE 1
v.
VARSITY BRANDS, LLC

M.D. Fla. | 2023-06-27
No. 83
District Court, M.D. Florida (2023)

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.

Holding

The court denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for clerk's default because they failed to provide legal authority demonstrating proper service of process on the defendant.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiffs sought a default against Defendant Erick Kristianson, alleging he was served by certified mail received by his mother. The court had previo…

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.

Topics
Service Of Process Default Judgment

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Service Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT (Doc. No. 83) FILED: June 26, 2023 THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without prejudice. Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for Clerk’s default against Defendant Erick Kristianson. Doc. No. 83. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ first motion without prejudice for failure to adequately address, with citation to legal

authority, that service of process on Mr. Kristianson was proper under governing law. See Doc. No. 47. The renewed motion suffers the same deficiency. Specifically, in the renewed motion, Plaintiffs state that Mr. Kristianson was served with a copy of the summons and complaint by certified mail received by Mr. Kristianson’s mother. Doc. No. 83 ¶ 2–4. See also Doc. No. 13. But Plaintiffs provide citation to no legal authority demonstrating that service of process by certified mail received by someone other than the named Defendant suffices.1

Notably, service by certified mail is insufficient under both Florida and federal law,2

[ inlay ie ayn Kica

LESLIE AN PRICE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

Footnotes
1 Instead, Plaintiffs’ renewed motion merely includes a conclusory assertion that Mr. Kristianson “was properly served” and has failed to timely respond or appear. Doc. No. 83, at 3, 4. 2 See, e.g., Stratton v. Napolitano, No. 8:11-cv-2651-T-35TGW, 2012 WL 12899117, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2012) (“Service by certified mail is not personal delivery, and, therefore, it is not sufficient under federal law. Moreover, service by certified mail, without an accompanying waiver, is not sufficient under Florida law.” (citations omitted)). and Plaintiffs provide no explanation as to whether any other jurisdiction’s law would apply. Accordingly, the renewed motion (Doc. No. 83) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs shall file a renewed motion on or before July 5, 2023, addressing these issues, which renewed motion must establish, with citation to legal authority, that service of process was proper under governing law. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on June 27, 2023.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw