Jamil v. Acosta

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jamil v. Acosta

697 So. 2d 1279, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9273, 1997 WL 473562

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 13, 1997

DocketNo. 96-3494

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 697 So. 2d 1279 (Jamil v. Acosta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jamil v. Acosta, 697 So. 2d 1279, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9273, 1997 WL 473562 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that the allegations in the second amended complaint were insufficient to authorize substituted service of process upon the nonresident appellant through the secretary of state, pursuant to sections 48.161 and 48.181, Florida Statutes (1989). See Caribe & Panama Invs., S.A. v. Christensen, 375 So.2d 601, 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Hartman Agency, Inc. v. Indiana Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 353 So.2d 665, 666 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1978); see also McDougal v. Mizrahi, 636 So.2d 138, 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (no basis for asserting personal jurisdiction over nonresidents absent sufficient allegations that nonresidents did business as individuals, as opposed to their conduct as officers of corporation).

It is well settled that a complaint must “sufficiently allege jurisdictional facts to clearly justify service”. Tako v. Mayer Rothkopf Indus., Inc., 388 So.2d 1092, 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Accordingly, the order below denying the appellant’s motion to quash service of process and ordering a responsive pleading is reversed and the cause remanded for dismissal of the second amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that the allegations in the second amended complaint were insufficient to authorize substituted service of process upon the nonresident appellant through the secretary of state, pursuant to sections 48.161 and 48.181, Florida Statutes (1989). See Caribe & Panama Invs., S.A. v. Christensen, 375 So.2d 601, 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Hartman Agency, Inc. v. Indiana Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 353 So.2d 665, 666 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1978); see also McDougal v. Mizrahi, 636 So.2d 138, 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (no basis for asserting personal jurisdiction over nonresidents absent sufficient allegations that nonresidents did business as individuals, as opposed to their conduct as officers of corporation).

It is well settled that a complaint must “sufficiently allege jurisdictional facts to clearly justify service”. Tako v. Mayer Rothkopf Indus., Inc., 388 So.2d 1092, 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Accordingly, the order below denying the appellant’s motion to quash service of process and ordering a responsive pleading is reversed and the cause remanded for dismissal of the second amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

697 So. 2d 1279, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9273, 1997 WL 473562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jamil-v-acosta-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack