From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. Salvatierra

United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division.
Sep 19, 2005
233 F.R.D. 630 (S.D. Fla. 2005)

Summary

finding leaving summons and complaint with individual at police officer's place of employment was not proper service on the police officer

Summary of this case from Real v. Perry

Opinion

Hugh L. Koerner, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff.

Craig Edward Leen, Dade County Attorney's Office, Miami, FL, for Defendants.


ORDER

JORDAN, District Judge.

Defendants Jose Salvatierra and Nelson Figueroa move to quash service of process by Ana Martin because (1) Ms. Martin's process server left the summons and complaint at Officer Salvatierra's place of employment, which is not permitted under federal or state law, and (2) the attempted service of the original complaint is deficient because the complaint has been superseded by an amended complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the motions by Officers Salvatierra and Figueroa [D.E. 11, 16] are GRANTED, and Ms. Martin's motion for an extension of time to serve the officers [D.E. 29] is also GRANTED.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e), service of process upon an individual may be effected either (1) pursuant to the law of the state in which the district court is located or in which service is effected, or (2) by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the individual personally or by leaving copies at that individual's place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion residing at that residence, or to an authorized agent. Under Florida law, the " usual place of abode" means the place where the defendant is actually living at the time of service. See Shurman v. Atlantic Mortgage & Inv. Corp., 795 So.2d 952, 954 (Fla.2001) (citations omitted). Statutes governing service of process are to be strictly construed to insure that a defendant receives notice of the proceedings; the burden of proving the validity of service of process is on the plaintiff. See Anthony v. Gary J. Rotella & Assocs., P.A., 906 So.2d 1205, 1207 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2005) (citation omitted).

First, Officer Salvatierra contends that he has not been personally served in this case. Rather, Ms. Martin's process server attempted to serve him by leaving the summons and complaint with an individual at Officer Salvatierra's place of employment. Officer Salvatierra states in his declaration that he never authorized anyone at his place of employment to accept service of process on his behalf, and he authorized an individual at his place of employment to sign only for receipt of a subpoena. See Declaration of Jose Salvatierra at ¶ 2 [D.E. 11].

As the burden rests with Ms. Martin to establish that service of process was valid, she has not shown under Florida law that the attempted service of process at Officer Salvatierra's place of employment-where he states he did not authorize service of process-is valid. Although service of process on police officers may be difficult, as Ms. Martin asserts, she must still properly serve each defendant. Accordingly, I find that Ms. Martin has not properly served Officer Salvatierra.

Second, both Officers Salvatierra and Figueroa contend that Ms. Martin's service of the original complaint is deficient because the original complaint had been superseded by an amended complaint at the time of service. I agree with the officers that Ms. Martin must effectuate service of her amended complaint and not her original complaint. See Gellert v. Richardson, No. 95-256-CIV-ORL-19, 1996 WL 107550, at *2 (M.D.Fla.1996) (citing Gilles v. United States, 906 F.2d 1386, 1390 (10th Cir.1990)) (where an amended pleading supersedes the original complaint, subsequent service of the superseded prior or original pleading is improper). Therefore, Ms. Martin's service of the original complaint on Officers Salvatierra and Figueroa is invalid.

Accordingly, the motions by Officers Salvatierra and Figueroa [D.E. 11, 16] to quash service are GRANTED. Ms. Martin's motion for an extension of time to serve the officers [D.E. 29], however, is also GRANTED. Ms. Martin shall have until October 28, 2005, to effectuate service of process of the amended complaint to Officers Salvatierra and Figueroa.


Summaries of

Martin v. Salvatierra

United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division.
Sep 19, 2005
233 F.R.D. 630 (S.D. Fla. 2005)

finding leaving summons and complaint with individual at police officer's place of employment was not proper service on the police officer

Summary of this case from Real v. Perry

In Martin, the district court quashed service of the original complaint, finding that service is invalid when a plaintiff serves a defendant with a copy of an inoperative pleading.

Summary of this case from Pepke v. Fla. Dep't of Families

quashing service and granting the plaintiff additional time to serve the defendants

Summary of this case from Pepke v. Fla. Dep't of Families

In Martin v. Salvatierra, 233 F.R.D. 630, 631-32 (S.D. Fla. 2005), this Court found that service of process on a police officer was not valid where the plaintiff attempted to serve the officer at his place of employment and the officer had not authorized anyone to accept service on his behalf at that location.

Summary of this case from Lomax v. City of Miami Police Dep't
Case details for

Martin v. Salvatierra

Case Details

Full title:Ana MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. Jose SALVATIERRA, individually; Nelson Figueroa…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division.

Date published: Sep 19, 2005

Citations

233 F.R.D. 630 (S.D. Fla. 2005)

Citing Cases

Pepke v. Fla. Dep't of Families

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) allows service of process upon an individual either (1) pursuant to the…

Rodriguez v. Henry Cnty. Sheriff's Office

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that Chief Bradley was served in…