Lumech, Inc., etc. v. Union Venture Trading S.A., etc.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: May 8, 2024
• Docket: 2023-1829
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May 8, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1829 Lower Tribunal No. 22-23716 ________________

Lumech, Inc., etc., et al., Appellants,

vs.

Union Venture Trading S.A., etc., Appellee.

An appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Valerie R. Manno Schurr, Judge.

Giasi Law, P.A., Erin M. Berger, and Melissa A. Giasi (Tampa), for appellants.

ALGO Law Firm, LLP, and Ignacio M. Alvarez, for appellee.

Before LINDSEY, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Allstate Mortg. Sols. Transfer, Inc. v. Bank of Am., N.A.,

338 So. 3d 985, 988 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Florida law is well[-]settled that a

defendant wishing to challenge personal jurisdiction must do so in the first

step the defendant takes in the case, or this defense will be deemed waived,

and the court will be deemed to have acquired jurisdiction over the

defendant.”); see also Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. Weinroth, 422 So. 2d 330,

331 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (“A defendant wishing to contest personal

jurisdiction must do so in the first step taken in the case, whether by motion

or in a responsive pleading, or that issue is waived and [the] defendant has

submitted himself to the court’s jurisdiction.”) (first citing Fla. R. Civ. P.

1.140(b), 1.140(h); then citing Miller v. Marriner, 403 So. 2d 472, 475 (Fla.

5th DCA 1981)); Snider v. Metcalfe, 157 So. 3d 422, 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)

(“Lack of personal jurisdiction is a waivable defense that must be raised at

the ‘first opportunity’ and before the defendant takes any steps in the

proceeding constituting submission to the court’s jurisdiction.”); Century-Nat’l

Ins. Co. v. Frantz, 320 So. 3d 929, 931 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (finding defendant

failed to timely object to personal jurisdiction by not disputing trial court’s

exercise of jurisdiction over him or otherwise seeking to quash service of

process in initial motion).