Kaufman v. Metro Limo Fund, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kaufman v. Metro Limo Fund, Inc.

503 So. 2d 967, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 736, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12035

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 10, 1987

DocketNo. 86-2558

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 503 So. 2d 967 (Kaufman v. Metro Limo Fund, Inc.) 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

Kaufman v. Metro Limo Fund, Inc., 503 So. 2d 967, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 736, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12035 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs Robyn and Bette Kaufman appeal an interlocutory order denying a motion to quash substituted service of process on a third-party defendant Karen Moyer Singh. The defendant Metro Limo Fund, Inc. filed a third-party complaint against Karen Moyer Singh and sought to serve her by substituted service of process under Sections 48.161, 48.171, Florida Statutes (1985). The plaintiffs Robyn and Bette Kaufman filed a motion to quash this service in the trial court, which motion was denied below. The third-party defendant Karen Moyer Singh has made no appearance below or in this court.

Without expressing any views on whether the substituted service of process on Karen Moyer Singh was properly effected below under Sections 48.161, 48.171, Florida Statutes (1985), we nonetheless affirm the order under review upon a holding that the plaintiff herein had no standing to move to quash the substituted service of process in this case. Although a plaintiff in an action has standing to move to dismiss a third-party complaint filed in the case, see Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.180(a), he has no standing to move to quash service of process against the said third-party defendant; only the third-party defendant has standing to make such a motion. The third-party defendant herein has made no such motion below, and, indeed, has made no appearance whatever in this action. See Superior Outdoor Advertising Co. v. State Highway Comm’n of Missouri, 641 S.W.2d 480 (Mo.Ct.App. 1982); Hull v. D. Irvin Transp. Ltd., 690 P.2d 414, 417 (Mont. 1984); Kopit v. Zilberszmidt, 35 N.Y.S.2d 558 (Sup.Ct. 1942); 62 Am.Jur.2d Process § 158 (1972).

On the sole basis, then, of the plaintiffs’ lack of standing to object to the service of process herein, the order under review is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs Robyn and Bette Kaufman appeal an interlocutory order denying a motion to quash substituted service of process on a third-party defendant Karen Moyer Singh. The defendant Metro Limo Fund, Inc. filed a third-party complaint against Karen Moyer Singh and sought to serve her by substituted service of process under Sections 48.161, 48.171, Florida Statutes (1985). The plaintiffs Robyn and Bette Kaufman filed a motion to quash this service in the trial court, which motion was denied below. The third-party defendant Karen Moyer Singh has made no appearance below or in this court.

Without expressing any views on whether the substituted service of process on Karen Moyer Singh was properly effected below under Sections 48.161, 48.171, Florida Statutes (1985), we nonetheless affirm the order under review upon a holding that the plaintiff herein had no standing to move to quash the substituted service of process in this case. Although a plaintiff in an action has standing to move to dismiss a third-party complaint filed in the case, see Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.180(a), he has no standing to move to quash service of process against the said third-party defendant; only the third-party defendant has standing to make such a motion. The third-party defendant herein has made no such motion below, and, indeed, has made no appearance whatever in this action. See Superior Outdoor Advertising Co. v. State Highway Comm’n of Missouri, 641 S.W.2d 480 (Mo.Ct.App. 1982); Hull v. D. Irvin Transp. Ltd., 690 P.2d 414, 417 (Mont. 1984); Kopit v. Zilberszmidt, 35 N.Y.S.2d 558 (Sup.Ct. 1942); 62 Am.Jur.2d Process § 158 (1972).

On the sole basis, then, of the plaintiffs’ lack of standing to object to the service of process herein, the order under review is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

503 So. 2d 967, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 736, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaufman-v-metro-limo-fund-inc-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack