TOUCHE ROSS & CO., APPELLANT,
v.
CANAVERAL INTERNATIONAL CORP., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the partnership was not properly served because Florida resident partners were served individually, not as co-partners of the entire partnership. However, the action can proceed if proper service is obtained.
Plaintiff appealed an order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant Touche Ross & Co., a New York partnership…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Non-Final Order Review cases and more on FLexlaw
HUBBART, Judge.
By this appeal, we are asked to review a trial court order denying a motion to dismiss an action based on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person as to the defendant Touche Ross & Co., a New York partnership, which has both Florida resident partners and out-of-state partners. We have jurisdiction to review this non-final order. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i).
In our view, the defendant Touche Ross & Co. was not properly served in this cause under Section 48.061(1), Florida Statutes (1977), because the Florida resident partners of the defendant herein were served solely as individuals; they were not specifically served as co-partners of all the named members of the defendant New York partnership as required by the above statute in order to properly serve the said partnership. Speight v. Horne, 101 Fla. 101, 133 So. 574 (1931); I. Epstein & Bros. v. First National Bank of Tampa, 92 Fla. 796, 110 So. 354 (1926); Hayman v. Weil, 53 Fla. 127, 44 So. 176 (1907).
Beyond that, we see no constitutional or other legal impediment to maintaining this action against the defendant Touche Ross & Co. providing it is properly served under Section 48.061(1), Florida Statutes (1977), as the action herein clearly arises out of partnership activities performed in this state by the said defendant. We find no merit in the contentions of the defendant Touche Ross & Co. to the contrary. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. Apartment Investments, Inc., 285 So. 2d 629, 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Homan, 116 So. 444 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959).
The order under review is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court without prejudice to the plaintiff Canaveral International Corp. to properly re-serve the defendant Touche Ross & Co. Reversed and remanded.
PEARSON, J., concurs in the decision to reverse only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goforit Ent. LLC v. Digimedia.com L.P., 513 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (M.D. Fla. 2007)…at some of the limited partners of [the Connecticut limited partnership defendants] are citizens of New York ... does not amount to ‘purposeful activity1 attributable to defendants in” New York); cf. Touche Ross & Co. v. Canaveral Int’l Corp., 369 So.2d 441, 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (stating in dicta that the court saw “no constitutional or other legal impediment” to suit against New York partnership in Florida where partnership had both Florida resident partners and out-of-state partners, “as the action…
Authorities Cited
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. State OF Wash., 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945)
- I. Epstein & Brother v. First Nat'l Bank of Tampa, 92 Fla. 796 (Fla. 1926)
- Speight v. Horne, 101 Fla. 101 (Fla. 1931)
- Hayman v. Weil, 53 Fla. 127 (Fla. 1907)
- Casper v. Stone, 285 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)