AQUILA STEEL CORPORATION, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
BUDD FONTANA, INDIVIDUALLY AND MARION FONTANA, HIS WIFE 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.
Aquila Steel Corporation, an Australian corporation, appealed from an order denying its motion to quash service of process. The court reversed, holding that service on a wholly-owned subsidiary does not constitute valid service on a parent corporation absent a showing that the parent exercised such control over the subsidiary that they were alter egos.
Service on a wholly-owned subsidiary does not constitute valid service on the parent corporation unless the plaintiff demonstrates that the parent exercised such control over the subsidiary that the subsidiary's activities were the parent's activities within the state, making them alter egos. Here, no such showing was made, and the trial court erred in denying the motion to quash service.
[1] Service of process on a foreign corporation must be made on its designated agent, or if no agent is designated, on a person authorized by law to receive service.
[2] A return of service that fails to list a party indicates that such party was not served.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Only where there is a showing by plaintiff that the parent corporation exercised such a degree of control over its subsidiary that the activities of the subsidiary were in fact the activities of the parent within the state is substituted service of process permitted.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for when service on a subsidiary can constitute service on a parent corporation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBudd Fontana sued several corporations for injuries from a concrete form lifting system at a Dade County construction site. The defendants included Aq…
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 Affidavit Of Service cases and more on FLexlaw
GODERICH, Judge.
The defendant, Aquila Steel Corporation Limited and/or Aquila Steel Company Limited [Aquila Steel], appeals from a non-final order denying its motion to dismiss or quash service of process for lack of jurisdiction. We reverse.
Budd Fontana sued several corporations for injuries sustained while using a concrete form lifting system while working at a construction site in Dade County. The defendants included Aquila Steel, an Australian corporation, and Aquila Aluminum, a California corporation. Fontana filed a notice in which he stated that the sheriff in California had properly served Aquila Steel Company Limited through its registered agent, Bern J. Galvin. However, the affidavit from the sheriff states that the sheriff served Aquila Aluminum Corporation through its registered agent, Bern J. Gal-vin.
Aquila Steel moved to quash service or dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. In support of its motion, Aquila Steel filed an affidavit by Bern Galvin stating that he had been Aquila Aluminum’s president, but that he is not, nor has he ever been, Aquila Steel’s resident agent. The affidavit further stated that Aquila Steel does not do business in the United States and that Aquila Steel and Aquila Aluminum are separate and independent companies, which conduct different types of business.
In opposition to the motions, Fontana filed the deposition of Jose M. Magboo, Jr., who had served as Aquila Aluminum’s president. Magboo testified that Aquila Steel was the parent company which owned Aquila Aluminum. He said that he reported directly to the chairman of the board of Aquila Steel. Magboo said that Aquila Steel supplied to Aquila Aluminum the equipment at issue in this action. The trial court denied the motion to quash or dismiss. Aquila Steel appeals.
Florida law provides that process against a foreign corporation may be served on the agent designated by the corporation. §§ 48.081(3), 48.091, 48.194, Fla. Stat. (1987). However, in the case at bar, Bern J. Galvin was not the agent of Aquila Steel. In addition, on its face, the affidavit of service returned by the California sheriff shows that the sheriff served Aquila Aluminum, not Aquila Steel. The failure to list Aquila Steel on the return of service means that Aquila Steel was not served. See Greene v. Stone, 418 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
By itself, the fact that the party actually served is the wholly-owned subsidiary of the party for whom service was intended does not support substituted service. See Mac Millan-Bloedel, Ltd., v. Canada, 391 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). “Only where there is a showing by plaintiff that the parent corporation exercised such a degree of control over its subsidiary that the activities of the subsidiary were in fact the activities of the parent within the state is substituted service of process permitted.” Volkswagenwerk Atkiengelselischaft v. McCurdy, 340 So. 2d 544, 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 950 (Fla.1977). In the instant case, Fontana has made no such showing. There was no evidence that the parent and subsidiary companies were alter egos or that the parent thoroughly controlled the subsidiary. Fontana has not presented sufficient facts to make service on the subsidiary, service on the parent. Thus the trial court erred in denying the motion to quash service. Accordingly, the order denying the motion to quash service is reversed.1
. Our decision makes it unnecessary to address Aquila Steel’s contention that it did not fall within Florida’s long-arm jurisdiction and lacked minimum contacts with Florida.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. The Am. Tobacco Co., 707 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…corporate interests of its own and functions solely to achieve the purposes of the dominant corporation.” Id. at 733 (quoting Baker v. Raymond Int'l, Inc., 656 F. 2d 173, 181 (5th Cir.l981))(em-phasis added); see also Aquila Steel Corp. v. Fontana, 585 So. 2d 426, 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)(addressing substituted service under section 48.181 and whether fact that party served was wholly-owned subsidiary of party for whom service was intended, court states: “Only where there is a showing by plaintiff that the par…
-
SOL MELIÁ, S.A. v. Fontana, 67 So. 3d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…business for the corporation in the state. See § 48.081(3), Fla. Stat. (2009). However, the fact that Sol Group is the wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Sol Meliá does not, by itself, support substituted service. See Aquila Steel Corp. v. Fontana, 585 So. 2d 426, 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). See also Mac Millan-Bloedel, Ltd. v. Canada, 391 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Rather, substitute service of process is only permitted where the plaintiff demonstrates, “that the parent corporation exercised such a degree…
-
MeterLogic, Inc. v. Copier Solutions, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 1346 (S.D. Fla. 2000)…te interests of its own and functions solely to achieve the purposes of the dominant corporation’.” Id. (quoting Vantage View, Inc. v. Bali East Development Corp., 421 So.2d 728, 733 (1982)); see also Aquila Steel Corp. v. Fontana, 585 So.2d 426, 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (stating that activities of subsidiary must be activities of parent for requisite degree of control to be found). John Scott, Inc. v. Munford, Inc., 670 F.Supp. 344 (S.D.Fla.1987) illustrates the high degree of control…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Volkswagenwerk Atkiengelselischaft v. McCURDY, 340 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- MAC Millan-Bloedel, Ltd. v. Canada, 391 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Leon N. Greene, M.D. v. Stone, 418 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)