EDINA TECHNICAL PRODUCTS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
TONY HO, 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 court held that jurisdiction was established under section 48.181, Florida Statutes, but service of process under section 48.161 was improper due to failure to file an affidavit of compliance.
Edina Technical Products, Inc. challenged service of process, arguing it was not subject to Florida jurisdiction. The amended complaint alleged Edina …
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 Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Edina Technical Products, Inc. appeals an order denying its motion to quash service of process and dismiss amended complaint. We affirm the trial court’s finding of jurisdiction under section 48.181, Florida Statutes (1991), but reverse that portion of the order which sustains the service of process under section 48.161.
The amended complaint alleges that Edina is doing business in Florida by selling vending machines and parts in Florida through distributors located in Florida. Although Edina challenged the jurisdictional allegations, the deposition and affidavit of its Florida agent and the affidavit of a Florida customer demonstrate the requisite control over the product necessary to sustain jurisdiction under the statute. See Law Offices of Evan I. Fetterman v. Inter-Tel, 480 So. 2d 1382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
However, the record demonstrates plaintiffs’ failure to timely file their affidavit of compliance under section 48.161. Plaintiffs do not allege, and the record does not otherwise reveal, that they sought and received an extension of time to comply. See generally, Trawick, Florida Practice and Procedure, § 8-16. Upon remand, plaintiffs shall be permitted another opportunity to perfect service of process. Law Offices of Evan I. Fetterman, 480 So. 2d at 1386.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
SMITH, ALLEN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wyatt v. Haese, 649 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…rd. Further, appellees failed to file an affidavit of compliance on or before the return [*908] day of the process. E.g., Law Offices of Evan I. Fetterman v. Inter-tel, Inc., 480 So. 2d 1382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Edina Technical Products, Inc. v. Ho, 633 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Patasnik v. Mermelstein, 379 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Appellees’ third attempt at service was by publication. Service of process by publication is not authorized in negligence actions. . Alan Restaurant Corp. v. Walder, 3…
Authorities Cited
- LAW Offs. OF Evan I. Fetterman v. Inter-Tel Inc., 480 So. 2d 1382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)