Medina Vega v. PBS Construction LLC

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedOctober 16, 2023
Docket6:23-cv-00940
StatusUnknown

This text of Medina Vega v. PBS Construction LLC (Medina Vega v. PBS Construction LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Medina Vega v. PBS Construction LLC, (M.D. Fla. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

LUZ OMAR MEDINA VEGA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:23-cv-940-PGB-EJK

PBS CONSTRUCTION LLC and BOGDAN S. PRINDI,

Defendants.

OMNIBUS ORDER This cause comes before the Court on the following filings: Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint in Order to Effectuate Substitute Service (Doc. 18), filed September 1, 2023; Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Defendant PBS Construction LLC by Other Means (Doc. 19), filed September 1, 2023; and Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Extend Period to Effectuate Service of Process (Doc. 20), filed September 9, 2023. The Motions are ripe for review. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff instituted this action against Defendants on May 19, 2023, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act due to Defendants’ failure to pay overtime and minimum wages owed to Plaintiff. (Doc. 1 ¶ 1.) Thereafter, on June 6, 2023, Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendants at PBS Construction LLC’s registered agent’s address, but was unable to do so, and subsequently filed an affidavit of non-service for Defendants, indicating they no longer leased the premises per the leasing manager. (Docs. 13, 14.) Defendant Bogdan S. Prindii (hereinafter “Prindii”) is the registered agent of Defendant PBS Construction LLC.1 On June 13, 2023, Prindii informed Plaintiff’s counsel by telephone that he was out of the state and would return on July

9, 2023. (Doc. 18 at 2.) During this telephone conversation, Prindii provided counsel with his residential address. (Id.) Since July 15, 2023, Plaintiff’s process server has been unsuccessful in multiple attempts to serve Defendants. (Id.) On July 27, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel again contacted Prindii via telephone to see if he would execute a

waiver of service, but Prindii declined and informed Plaintiff that he had again left the state. (Id.) Despite Prindii verbally declining a service waiver, on July 31, 2023, Plaintiff sent a waiver with a copy of the complaint, summonses, and cover letter via certified first-class mail with a return receipt to the address provided by Prindii. (Id. at 3.) On

August 5, 2023, USPS confirmed delivery of the service waiver packet. (Id.) Additionally, on August 5, 2023, while attempting to personally serve Defendants, Plaintiff’s process server made contact with an individual at Prindii’s residential address. (Doc. 18-2 at 6.) The individual informed the process server that Prindii lived

1 Detail of Entity Name of PBS Construction LLC, Division of Corporations, an official State of Florida website, https://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquiryty pe=EntityName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=PBSCONSTRUCTIO N%20L220002107590&aggregateId=flal-l22000210759-3d70d683-f0ef-4145-bf62- f1f841fcd1d0&searchTerm=PBS%20CONSTRUCTION%20LLC%20&listNameOr der=PBSCONSTRUCTION%20L220002107590. (last visited Oct. 12, 2023). there but he did not know when he would see Prindii again since Prindii “was a long haul truck driver,” and the individual was unwilling to accept service on Prindii’s behalf. (Id.) Defendants never returned executed waivers of service, the time to do so

has now passed, and Plaintiff, despite multiple attempts, has been unable to serve Defendants, leading Plaintiff to file the instant Motions. II. STANDARD In certain circumstances, substituted service of process may be effectuated upon

a nonresident or a party who conceals his or her whereabouts. EHR Aviation, Inc. v. Lawson, No. 3:09-cv-210-J-32TEM, 2011 WL 46119, at *1 (M.D. Fla. January 6, 2011). Valid substituted service on the Secretary of State requires strict compliance with the statutory provisions for substituted service. City of Jacksonville v. Arrigato, Inc., No. 3:10-cv-211-J-32MCR, 2010 WL 3069135, at *1 (M.D. Fla. August 4, 2010)

(citing George Fisher, Ltd. v. Plastiline, Inc., 379 So.2d 697, 699 (S.D. Fla. 1980)). “The courts have consistently observed that statutes relating to substituted service of process (in lieu of personal service of process) must be strictly construed; and the burden of proof to sustain the validity of substituted service of process rests upon the person seeking to invoke the provisions of such statutes.” Hughes v. American Tripoli, Inc., No.

2:04-cv-485-FtM-29DNF, 2007 WL 2071529, at *1–2 (M.D. Fla. July 17, 2007) (citing Elmex Corp. v. Atlantic Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Ft. Lauderdale, 325 So.2d 58, 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (citations omitted)). On June 15, 2022, the Florida Legislature passed S.B. 1062, which reshaped the procedures for, and methods governing, service of process for actions pending in Florida courts. See Fla. S.B. 1062, 2022 Fla. Laws ch. 2022-190 (enacted June 15, 2022) (effective January 2, 2023). The new legislation simplifies, clarifies, and modernizes the manner of service of process on business entities. (Id.)

III. DISCUSSION A. Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Doc. 18) In order for Plaintiff to substitute service of process upon Prindii by serving the Secretary of State pursuant to Florida Statutes §§ 48.181 and 48.161, Plaintiff seeks

leave to amend his Complaint in order to plead that Defendant Prindii, as an individual Florida resident, is concealing his whereabouts. (Doc. 18 at 13–18.) The Motion is due to be granted in part, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks authority to serve the Secretary of State on behalf of Prindii, because the Court finds that Prindii is a Florida resident concealing his whereabouts. Plaintiff’s request to seek leave to amend

his Complaint is due to be denied for the reasons set forth below. Section 48.181 states in pertinent part: Any individual . . . that conceals its whereabouts is deemed to have appointed the Secretary of State as its agent on whom all process may be served, in any action or proceeding against it . . . arising out of any transaction or operation connected with or incidental to any business or business venture carried on this state by such individual or business entity . . . . [s]ervice pursuant to this section must be effectuated in the manner prescribed by s. 48.161. Fla. Stat. § 48.181(4), (6), amended by 2022 Fla. Laws ch. 2022-190, 14–15 (effective January 2, 2023). Section 48.161 states in pertinent part: When an individual or a business entity conceals its whereabouts, the party seeking to effectuate service, after exercising due diligence to locate and effectuate personal service, may use substituted service [by Serving the Secretary of State] . . . in connection with any action in which the court has jurisdiction over such individual or business entity. . . . The party effectuating service is considered to have used due diligence if that party: (a) Made diligent inquiry and exerted an honest and conscientious effort appropriate to the circumstances to acquire the information necessary to effectuate personal service; (b) In seeking effectuate personal service, reasonably employed the knowledge at the party's command, including knowledge obtained pursuant to paragraph (a); and (c) Made an appropriate number of attempts to serve the party, taking into account the particular circumstances, during such times when and where such party is reasonably likely to be found, as determined through resources reasonably available to the party seeking to secure service of process. Fla. Stat. § 48.161(3), (4)(a)–(c), amended by 2022 Fla. Laws ch. 2022-190, 12–14 (effective January 2, 2023).

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

Related

Hernandez v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. CO.
32 So. 3d 695 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
George Fischer Ltd. v. Plastiline, Inc.
379 So. 2d 697 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Elmex Corp. v. Atlantic Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Fort Lauderdale
325 So. 2d 58 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Medina Vega v. PBS Construction LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medina-vega-v-pbs-construction-llc-flmd-2023.