AKIVA GOFFER, APPELLANT,
v.
GRAINGER WESTON; WESTON SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD., AN ISRAELL CORPORATION; AND OVERLORD, INC., A TEXAS CORPORATION, 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.
A Florida appellate court affirmed the quashing of service of process against a foreign Israeli corporation where the only contact with Florida was service on the corporation's president while temporarily in the state. The court held that serving a foreign corporation's officer does not establish jurisdiction absent minimum contacts with Florida.
The court held that service of process was properly quashed because the foreign corporation lacked minimum contacts with Florida. Despite compliance with the statutory procedure for serving the corporation's president under § 48.081 Fla. Stat., the court found that a foreign corporation transacting no business and maintaining no presence in Florida cannot be subjected to jurisdiction based solely on service of process on its officer.
“the corporation has never transacted any business, nor had an office, resident agent or qualified to do business in the state of Florida”
Establishes the factual basis for finding lack of minimum contacts with the forum state
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Goffer sued Weston Shipping Company, Ltd., an Israeli corporation that owns the motor vessel Jamaica Queen and maintains its only office in …
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 Service Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an interlocutory appeal by plaintiff from an order granting the motion of defendant, Weston Shipping Company, Ltd., to quash service of process. The service of process objected to was made by plaintiff upon the defendant, an Israeli corporation, by serving its president, Granger Weston, while he was in the state of Florida.
The business of the corporation is that of owning a motor vessel, Jamaica Queen. The only office it maintains is in London, England. The trial court found from the affidavits and depositions on file that the corporation has never transacted any business, nor had an office, resident agent or qualified to do business in the state of Florida; and that it appears that its president, a citizen of Canada, presently residing in the state of Texas, was not present in the state of Florida on February 16, 1968, on behalf of said defendant. Based upon these findings the trial court quashed the service of process because of lack of minimal contact on the part of the defendant, Weston Shipping Company, Ltd., with the state of Florida.
Appellant argues on appeal that he followed the requirements of § 48.081 Fla. Stat., F.S.A. in the service of process. The statute relied upon, in pertinent part, provides:
“(1) Process against any private corporation, domestic or foreign, may be served:
“(a) On the president or vice-president, or other head of the corporation; and in his absence:
“(b) On the cashier, treasurer, secretary or general manager; * * *
“(2) If a foreign corporation has none of the foregoing officers or agents in *897this state, service may be made on any agent transacting business for it in this state.”
Appellant contends that it is not a requirement under the statute that the foreign corporation be transacting business in this state since service was had on the president of said corporation, as provided for in the statute. We can not agree.
It is our view that the trial court was correct in quashing service of process for lack of minimal contact and activity in the state of Florida. See Brown v. Cuba—American Jockey Club of Florida, (D.C.Fla.S.D. 1925) 7 F.2d 783.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Youngblood v. Citrus Assocs. OF the NEW York Cotton Exch., Inc., 276 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
-
Caribe & Panama Invs. v. Lauge Christensen, 375 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ngblood v. Citrus Associates of the New York Cotton Exchange, 276 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), cert. denied, 285 So. 2d 26 (Fla.1973); Lyster v. Round, 276 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973), cert. denied, 283 So. 2d 105 (Fla.1973); Goffer v. Weston, 217 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). It is clear that the burden is upon the plaintiff to sustain the validity of such service when he seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of the court, Youngblood v. Citrus Associates of the New York Cotton Exchange, supra, and he must…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. Cuba-American Jockey Club of Fla. (S.D. Fla. 1925)