From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jamil v. Acosta

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Aug 13, 1997
697 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

Opinion

Case No. 96-3494

Opinion filed August 13, 1997.

An appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Bernard S. Shapiro, Judge.

Richard W. Wasserman, for appellant.

Defabio and Fenn, P.A. and William Y. Sayad, Jr., for appellee.

Before NESBITT, GODERICH, and GREEN, JJ.


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.


Summaries of

Jamil v. Acosta

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Aug 13, 1997
697 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
Case details for

Jamil v. Acosta

Case Details

Full title:BENJAMIN JAMIL, APPELLANT, vs. MARIA EUGENIA MURGAS ACOSTA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Aug 13, 1997

Citations

697 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

Citing Cases

Berne v. Beznos

These activities also are not sufficient to give rise to jurisdiction over the defendant personally. Jamil v.…

Berne v. Beznos

However, under the corporate shield doctrine, such activities are not sufficient to establish jurisdiction…