Nationwide Service Of Process

53 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Hilgeman v. Nat'l Ins. Co. OF Am.
  547 F.2d 298· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-18 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper service/venue, but was correct in dismissing claims against Empire and NICOA based on improper service under state law. The court also reversed the dismissal of
• DeJAMES v. Magnificence Carriers, Inc.
  654 F.2d 280· 3d Cir.· 1981-07-09 ·cited 46×
  The dissenting judge would hold that Hitachi's contacts with New Jersey satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment due process requirements for personal jurisdiction, distinguishing it from a local dealer. The judge also argues that the Fifth Amendment, not the Fourteenth, governs due proc
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Kramer
  778 F. Supp. 2d 1320· M.D. Fla.· 2011-04-01 ·cited 43×
  The court held that Baker's statements were inadmissible hearsay and granted Kramer's motion to exclude them. The court also sustained Kramer's objection to the magistrate judge's order denying his Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the Commission.
• Mariash v. Morrill
  496 F.2d 1138· 2d Cir.· 1974-05-10 ·cited 43×
  The court held that Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 authorizes nationwide service of process, and venue is proper in the district where a significant act constituting the violation occurred, even if defendants lack direct contacts with that district.
• Duplantier v. United States
  606 F.2d 654· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-19 ·cited 39×
  The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 is constitutional as applied to federal judges, and the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction was proper.
• Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp. v. Seymour Vigman
  764 F.2d 1309· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-02 ·cited 38×
  The court held that Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 authorizes nationwide service of process, and personal jurisdiction over a defendant is established by minimum contacts with the United States, not a specific forum state. The court also held that a co-conspira
• Friedrich Wilhelm Waffenschmidt v. MacKay
  763 F.2d 711· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-21 ·cited 29×
  Nonparties who reside outside a court's territorial jurisdiction may be subject to its jurisdiction if they actively aid and abet a party in violating a court order, with actual notice of that order.
• Managed Care Advisory Grp., LLC v. Cigna Healthcare, Inc.
  939 F.3d 1145· 11th Cir.· 2019-09-18 ·cited 28×
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed a district court order that enforced arbitral summonses requiring non-parties to provide testimony and documents via video conference in a dispute over class action settlement funds, holding that Section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires summ
• Driver v. Helms
  577 F.2d 147· 1st Cir.· 1978-05-25 ·cited 26×
  The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) applies to former government officials and to damage actions against officials in their individual capacities, and that its nationwide service provision is constitutional.
• MAX Daetwyler Corp. v. Meyer
  762 F.2d 290· 3d Cir.· 1985-05-22 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court erred in asserting jurisdiction based on national contacts and that the Pennsylvania long-arm statute, properly construed, did not provide a basis for jurisdiction in this case.
• In re Chase & Sanborn Corp. v. Granfinanciera, S.A.
  835 F.2d 1341· 11th Cir.· 1988-01-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that personal jurisdiction was properly exercised over the defendants, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act did not apply, and the defendants were not entitled to a jury trial.
• Conover v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
  794 F.2d 520· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-17 ·cited 24×
  An arbitration agreement between a customer and a securities broker is void as to claims arising under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Marin
  982 F.3d 1341· 11th Cir.· 2020-12-14 ·cited 22×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's orders enforcing SEC subpoenas, finding proper personal jurisdiction over Marin and that the subpoenas were relevant to a legitimate investigation into potential violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
• Gen. Cigar Holdings, Inc. v. Altadis, S.A.
  205 F. Supp. 2d 1335· S.D. Fla.· 2002-06-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that Altadis, S.A. lacks sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to establish personal jurisdiction, despite allegations of tortious conduct within the state. The court also found that Altadis U.S.A.'s activities could not be imputed to Altadis, S.A. to establish
• Lisak v. Mercantile Bancorp, Inc.
  834 F.2d 668· 7th Cir.· 1987-11-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that claims arising from the trust's establishment and early operation were barred by res judicata, but claims of post-1978 maladministration and RICO violations could proceed, reversing the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction over a defendant served under
• Point Landing, Inc. v. Omni Cap. Int'l, Ltd.
  795 F.2d 415· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-25 ·cited 16×
  In a federal question case, a federal court's personal jurisdiction over an alien defendant can be based on the defendant's aggregate contacts with the United States as a whole, not just with the forum state, to satisfy the Fifth Amendment's due process clause.
• Steinert v. United States Dist. Court FOR the Dist. OF Nev.
  543 F.2d 69· 9th Cir.· 1976-10-01 ·cited 16×
  A miscitation in an indictment is not grounds for dismissal if the defendant was not misled or prejudiced. Criminal contempts under 18 U.S.C. § 401 can be prosecuted by indictment.
• H. L. Green Co., Inc. v. The Honorable Lloyd F. MacMAHON
  312 F.2d 650· 2d Cir.· 1962-07-25 ·cited 14×
  A district court's order transferring a civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) will not be set aside by writ of mandamus, even if the transferee court might apply less favorable law, as long as the transfer is within the court's power and convenience justifies it.
• In re Arb. Between Johns & Taramita, Inc.
  132 F. Supp. 2d 1021· S.D. Fla.· 2001-02-08 ·cited 12×
  A forum selection clause alone is insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant in Florida, absent an independent basis under Florida's long-arm statute.
• Haile-Appellant v. Henderson Nat'l Bank
  657 F.2d 816· 6th Cir.· 1981-08-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that federal district courts may exercise in personam jurisdiction over citizens without regard to their contacts with the specific district, as long as they have minimum contacts with the United States.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gunaca
  230 F.2d 542· 7th Cir.· 1956-02-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the District Court had jurisdiction to enforce the NLRB subpoena against the respondent. The National Labor Relations Act grants venue and allows for nationwide service of process.
• BankAtlantic v. Coast to Coast Contractors, Inc.
  947 F. Supp. 480· S.D. Fla.· 1996-07-17 ·cited 6×
  The court denied defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that RICO's nationwide service provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1965(d), provided a basis for jurisdiction over defendants with minimum contacts with the United States.
• Brink's MAT Ltd. v. Diamond
  906 F.2d 1519· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-30 ·cited 6×
  A plaintiff in a RICO case is not limited to domestic service of process by the RICO statute and may use means authorized by state law for serving foreign defendants abroad.
• Minkin Chandler v. Barclays Bank PLC
  898 F.2d 1148· 6th Cir.· 1990-03-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the issuance of a letter of credit naming a resident of a state as beneficiary, without more, does not establish sufficient minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction over the issuing bank in that state. Furthermore, a 'national contacts' analysis is inapplica
• T.M. Hylwa, M.D., Inc. v. Palka
  823 F.2d 310· 9th Cir.· 1987-07-28 ·cited 6×
  A federal court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant under a state's long-arm statute if the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state, even if the defendant did not physically enter the state.
• Caldwell v. Palmetto State Sav. Bank OF S.C.
  811 F.2d 916· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and that their appeal was frivolous, warranting sanctions.
• Indianapolis Colts v. Mayor & City Council OF Baltimore
  733 F.2d 484· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-08 ·cited 6×
  The court granted the City of Baltimore's motion to stay the injunction preventing its eminent domain action but denied its request to enjoin the Colts from preparing to play in Indianapolis.
• Kelly v. Raese
  377 F.2d 263· 4th Cir.· 1967-04-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the interpleader action was improperly invoked due to a lack of genuine fear of double liability and the collusive nature of the suit, as the plaintiff corporation was controlled by one of the defendants.
• GUY v. Citizens Fid. Bank & Tr. Co.
  429 F.2d 828· 6th Cir.· 1970-07-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court had ancillary jurisdiction over the interpleader action and validly exercised nationwide process under 28 U.S.C. § 1655 for an in rem action concerning personal property.
• Cannon v. Gardner-Martin Asphalt Corp. Ret. Trust-Profit Sharing Plan
  699 F. Supp. 265· M.D. Fla.· 1988-05-17 ·cited 3×
  The court held that personal jurisdiction over the defendant could be exercised based on minimum contacts with the United States, not just the forum state, under ERISA's nationwide service of process provision.
• Gill v. Three Dimension Sys., Inc.
  87 F. Supp. 2d 1278· M.D. Fla.· 2000-02-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it had federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, but lacked personal jurisdiction over two defendants. The court denied dismissal for most claims but dismissed the mismanagement claim.
• Cameron v. Thornburgh
  983 F.2d 253· D.C. Cir.· 1993-01-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that venue was improper in the District of Columbia for the Bivens action and that the claims against two federal officials failed to state a claim. The court affirmed dismissal of claims against two officials and transferred the remaining claims to the proper venu
• Stauffacher v. Bennett
  969 F.2d 455· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendants, Canadian residents, lacked sufficient contacts with Wisconsin to establish personal jurisdiction under the state's long-arm statute or federal statutes for claims arising from a failed investment venture.
• Bourassa v. Desrochers
  938 F.2d 1056· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a defendant served within the United States, under the nationwide service provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, has minimum contacts with the United States sufficient for personal jurisdiction, even if the forum state is unrelated to the defendant'
• Tristar Prods. Inc v. Telebrands Corp.
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-04-14
  Tristar Products, Inc. sued Telebrands Corporation, Whele LLC (Perch), and attorney Jeffrey L. Snow for tortious interference, fraud, civil RICO violations, and antitrust violations arising from their alleged scheme to fraudulently cancel Tristar's patent rights to expandable gar
• Joseph v. Gen. Conf. Corp. of 7th Day Adventist
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-02-26
  Plaintiff Lorfils Joseph filed a lawsuit against the General Conference Corporation of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in federal district court in Florida. The court granted Joseph's request to proceed without paying court fees and costs, issued summonses for the defendants, an
• Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Traders Domain FX Ltd.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-01-17
  The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the complaint stated a claim for fraud under the CEA and that the court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant due to nationwide service of process under the CEA and the defendant's minimum contacts with the U
• Gerow v. Newsom
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-25
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish personal jurisdiction over the legislative defendants and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• C.T. v. Red Roof Inns, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-12-30
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal, finding that the issue of whether the TVPRA authorizes nationwide service of process did not meet the criteria for interlocutory appeal.
• Millner v. Plutus Enters. LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-06-22
  The court held that federal RICO provides for nationwide service of process, establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and that the amended complaint sufficiently pleaded claims under RICO and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
• Graceland v. Plutus Enters. LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-04-25
  The court held that while personal jurisdiction exists over the defendants under RICO, venue is improper in this district, and thus the case is dismissed without prejudice.
• Worldwide Aircraft Servs., Inc. v. Anthem Ins. Cos., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-03-16
  The court held that Plaintiffs failed to establish standing for Jet ICU to bring an ERISA claim due to an anti-assignment clause in the plan and lack of proper assignment, and that the complaint failed to identify specific plan provisions for the claim.
• Zelinski v. Shurwest, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-02-26
  The court held that it has personal jurisdiction over the defendant and that the plaintiffs have adequately pleaded claims for violation of federal securities law, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Mintrade Techs., LLC
  11th Cir.· 2020-12-14
  The court held that the district court properly exercised personal jurisdiction over Marin and did not abuse its discretion in enforcing the subpoenas against Marin and MinTrade, finding them relevant to a legitimate investigation.
• Stone v. Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-06-05
  The court held that venue was improper in the District of South Carolina and properly transferred the case to the Southern District of Florida.
• Bryant v. Hasbro, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-03-23
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration because she failed to establish grounds for relief under Rule 60(b) and merely rehashed previously rejected arguments.
• Bryant v. Hasbro, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-01-15
  The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant because the plaintiff failed to establish either general or specific jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute, and also failed to state a claim under ERISA.
• U.S. Ex Rel. McFarland v. Fla. Pharmacy Soln.
  115 La. 850· M.D. Fla.· 2017-07-24
  The court held that most claims were dismissed for failing to meet pleading standards under Rules 8(a) and 9(b), particularly regarding specificity of fraud allegations, but denied motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
• Koch v. Royal Wine Merchs., Ltd.
  649 F. App'x 217· S.D. Fla.· 2012-03-21
  The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants for the state law claims and that the RICO claim was not pleaded with sufficient particularity, warranting dismissal of the entire complaint.
• IN & FOR NEW Castle Cnty. Judy Kelly v. McKesson Hboc, Inc.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2002-01-17
  The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on their breach of contract claim, finding that factual issues remain regarding the defendant's knowledge of misrepresentations. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim, f