SERVIQUIM CA, ETC.,

v.

MANUCHAR NV, ETC.,

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Burnham v. Superior Ct. of California, Cnty. of Marin, 495 U.S. 604, 619 (1990) (“[J]urisdiction based on physical presence alone constitutes due process because it is one of the continuing traditions of our legal system that define the due process standard of ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’”); Durkee v. Durkee, 906 So. 2d 1176, 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (quoting Garrett v. Garrett, 668 So. 2d 991, 994 (Fla. 1996) (Wells, J., concurring)) (“Florida courts have personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when that nonresident defendant is properly served with service of process while that nonresident defendant is voluntarily present in Florida.”); Koster v. Sullivan, 160 So. 3d 385, 389 (Fla. 2015) (quoting Re-Employment Services, Ltd. v. Nat’l Loan Acquisitions Co., 969 So. 2d 467, 471 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)) (“If the return [of service] is regular on its face, then the service of process is presumed to be valid and the party challenging service has the burden of overcoming that presumption by clear and convincing evidence.”); § 48.081(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2022) (“Process against any private corporation, domestic or foreign, may be served: . . . . on any director . . . .”); Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.516(a) (emphasis added) (“Unless the court otherwise orders, . . . every . . . document . . . must be served in accordance with this rule . . . .”); Emerald Coast Utils. Auth. v. Bear Marcus Pointe, LLC, 227 So. 3d 752, 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (“[A] conscious

decision to use a defective email system without any safeguards or oversight . . . cannot constitute excusable neglect.”).