FERNANDO COLMENARES
v.
PABLO DARIO CASTILLO
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.
Once a defendant is personally served with an initial complaint, service of amended complaints is accomplished through the procedures in Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.516(a) and (b), and a certificate of service is prima facie proof of proper service.
[1] After a defendant is personally served with an initial complaint pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070, service of amended complaints is accomplished through…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 certificate of service is prima facie proof that service was effectuated on the date sworn to by counsel.”
Court citing Nesslein v. Nesslein, 672 So. 2d 582, 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), in support of the validity of service via e-filing portal.
Colmenares was personally served with the initial complaint on February 7, 2022, but failed to respond. The first amended complaint was served on Colm…
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.070 cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed December 3, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-0080 Lower Tribunal No. 21-25004-CA-01 ________________
Fernando Colmenares, Appellant,
vs.
Pablo Dario Castillo, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ariana Fajardo Orshan, Judge.
Fernando Colmenares, in proper person.
Bushell Law, P.A., and Daniel A. Bushell (Fort Lauderdale); Cardozo Law Firm, PLLC, and Lizet Cardozo (Miramar), for appellee.
Before SCALES, C.J., and LINDSEY and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2 Appellant Fernando Colmenares, pro se, appeals a December 16, 2024 final default judgment and the trial court’s January 28, 2025 order denying Appellant’s motion seeking, among other things, to vacate the default judgment a sixth time. As it was in Appellant’s numerous motions filed below, Appellant’s principal argument on appeal is that the default should not have been entered against him because Appellee Pablo Dario Castillo did not personally serve Appellant with the first amended complaint.1 Once a defendant is personally served with a complaint pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070 (whether in person or by substitute service, as occurred here), the service of future documents – including an amended complaint – is accomplished by the procedures set forth in Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.516(a) and (b). The record reflects that Appellant was served with the initial complaint on February 7, 2022. Appellant did not respond to the complaint as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(a)(1). The certificate of service on Appellant’s first amended complaint reflects that it was properly served on Appellant via the court’s e-filing portal system, as authorized in the
3 aforementioned rule 2.516. “The certificate of service is prima facie proof that service was effectuated on the date sworn to by counsel.” Nesslein v. Nesslein, 672 So. 2d 582, 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We neither find an abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of Colmenares’s motion to vacate the default order nor in the trial court’s entry of default final judgment. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brem C. Nesslein v. Nesslein, 672 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- 205 Jacksonville, LLC v. A-Affordable AIR, LLC, 16 So. 3d 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)