SERVIQUIM CA, etc. v. MANUCHAR NV, etc.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: January 18, 2023
• Docket: 21-2100
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed January 18, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-2100 Lower Tribunal No. 19-31187 ________________

Serviquim CA, etc., Appellant,

vs.

Manuchar NV, etc., Appellee.

An appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne Del Rio, Judge.

Mavrick Law Firm, Peter T. Mavrick, Nathan A. Kelvy, and Lauren Swanson (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant.

Schwartz Sladkus Reich Greenberg Atlas LLP, Robin Bresky, and Randall Burks (Boca Raton), for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and EMAS, and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Burnham v. Superior Ct. of California, Cnty. of Marin,

495 U.S. 604, 619 (1990) (“[J]urisdiction based on physical presence alone

constitutes due process because it is one of the continuing traditions of our

legal system that define the due process standard of ‘traditional notions of

fair play and substantial justice.’”); Durkee v. Durkee, 906 So. 2d 1176, 1177

(Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (quoting Garrett v. Garrett, 668 So. 2d 991, 994 (Fla.

1996) (Wells, J., concurring)) (“Florida courts have personal jurisdiction over

a nonresident defendant when that nonresident defendant is properly served

with service of process while that nonresident defendant is voluntarily

present in Florida.”); Koster v. Sullivan, 160 So. 3d 385, 389 (Fla. 2015)

(quoting Re-Employment Services, Ltd. v. Nat’l Loan Acquisitions Co., 969

So. 2d 467, 471 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)) (“If the return [of service] is regular on

its face, then the service of process is presumed to be valid and the party

challenging service has the burden of overcoming that presumption by clear

and convincing evidence.”); § 48.081(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2022) (“Process

against any private corporation, domestic or foreign, may be served: . . . . on

any director . . . .”); Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.516(a) (emphasis added) (“Unless

the court otherwise orders, . . . every . . . document . . . must be served in

accordance with this rule . . . .”); Emerald Coast Utils. Auth. v. Bear Marcus

Pointe, LLC, 227 So. 3d 752, 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (“[A] conscious

2 decision to use a defective email system without any safeguards or oversight

. . . cannot constitute excusable neglect.”).