SUPERIOR BROKERAGE SERVICES, INC.
v.
ELYAHU MADUEL.
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.
Filing a motion for enlargement of time to respond does not constitute a general appearance and therefore does not waive a defense of lack of personal jurisdiction based on insufficient service of process.
[1] Filing a motion for enlargement of time to respond to a complaint does not constitute a general appearance that waives the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction for in…
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 intelligenceSuperior Brokerage Services was sued and an attorney, Alan Dagen, filed a motion to enlarge time to respond to the complaint on its behalf. The trial …
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 Motion For Enlargement Of Time cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Superior Brokerage Services, Inc., appeals a trial court order denying its motion for relief from default final judgment. The trial court found that Superior Brokerage waived its defense to insufficient service of process because Alan Dagen, Esq., had filed a motion to enlarge time to respond to the Appellees’ complaint on behalf of Superior Brokerage. Superior Brokerage argues that Dagen did not have authority to appear on its behalf, and the filing of a motion for enlargement of time did not waive the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction for insufficient service of process. The Appellees concede error.
Even assuming arguendo that Dagen had authority to file the motion for enlargement of time on Superior Brokerage’s behalf, the filing of a motion for enlargement of time does not constitute a general appearance in the case and, thus, does not waive a defense of lack of jurisdiction for insufficient service of process. Byers v. FIA Card Servs., N.A., 82 So. 3d 1166, 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). We reverse and remand for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded.
MAY, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
2