PEDRO LUIS AVILA, APPELLANT,
v.
PACINDAT MUTUAL PROTECTION & INDEMNITY ASSOCIATION, LTD., AND THE PAN AMERICAN CLUB, APPELLEES
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.
Avila appealed the trial court's dismissal of a writ of garnishment against foreign corporations Pacindat and The Pan American Club based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The court reversed, holding that the dismissal was premature because Avila had not been given a reasonable opportunity to complete discovery on the jurisdictional issue.
The court reversed the dismissal order, holding that it was prematurely entered before Avila had been given a reasonable opportunity to complete discovery on the jurisdictional issue. The court remanded for the trial court to permit Avila a reasonable opportunity to complete discovery and amend the writ if desired.
[1] A trial court order dismissing a writ of garnishment for lack of personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants is prematurely entered if the plaintiff has not had a reaso…
[2] A plaintiff is entitled to discovery from a defendant in an attempt to establish personal jurisdiction.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the order was prematurely entered before the plaintiff Pedro Luis Avila had a reasonable opportunity to complete his discovery on the jurisdictional issue in this cause”
States the core holding that dismissal was premature due to incomplete discovery.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePedro Luis Avila sought to garnish assets of two foreign corporations, Pacindat Mutual Protection & Indemnity Association, Ltd. and The Pan American C…
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-Residents cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a trial court order which dismisses, dissolves and discharges a writ of garnishment on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the foreign corporation defendants Pacindat Mutual Protection & Indemnity Association, Ltd. and The Pan American Club.
We reverse the order under review upon a holding that the said order was prematurely entered before the plaintiff Pedro Luis Avila had a reasonable opportunity to complete his discovery on the jurisdictional issue in this cause. See Frankel v. City of Miami Beach, 340 So. 2d 463, 469 (Fla.1977); A & B Pipe & Supply Co. v. Turnberry Towers, 500 So. 2d 261, 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Moore v. Freeman, 396 So. 2d 276, 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Lovelace v. Sobrino, 280 So. 2d 514, 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); see also Unitech Corp. v. Atlantic Nat’l Bank, 472 So. 2d 817, 818 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); cf. Royal Netherlands S.S. v. Quinto de Garcia, 489 So. 2d 128, 130 (Fla. 3d DCA) (plaintiff entitled to discovery from defendant in attempt to establish jurisdiction), rev. denied, 496 So. 2d 143 (Fla.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1090, 107 S.Ct. 1299, 94 L.Ed.2d 155 (1987); Cameron v. Odissea Shipping Co., 486 So. 2d 30, 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (premature dismissal on jurisdictional issues); Reddish v. Fortines, 207 So. 2d 703, 707-08 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968) (premature dismissal for failure to prosecute where discovery outstanding).
Upon remand, the trial court shall permit the plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to complete his aforesaid discovery and to amend the writ of garnishment should he choose to do so. It should be noted, however, that “[w]hen service of process is to be made under statutes authorizing service on non-residents of Florida, it is sufficient to plead the basis for service in the language of the statute without pleading the facts supporting service.” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.070®.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sovran Bank, N.A. v. Parsons, 547 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…ed, whereupon the issues may be drawn, litigated, and decided. In sum we hold that the dismissal was premature. Lipman v. Vanowen Realty Corp., 528 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Avila v. Pacindat Mutual Protection & Indemnity Association, Ltd., 528 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1988). REVERSED AND REMANDED. ANSTEAD, WALDEN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.…
-
Sunrise Assisted Living, Inc. v. Ward, 719 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…5 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The basis for service on a nonresident defendant may be set forth in the language of the statute rather than by reference to the facts supporting the same. See Avila v. Pacindat Mut. Protection & Indem. Ass’n, Ltd., 528 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). If the court does not acquire jurisdiction in the proper manner, a judgment entered by it is void. See Space Coast Credit Union v. The First, F.A., 467 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). In this case, neither the motion for writ of…
-
Gaines Motor Lines, Inc. v. Channdra Scott, 545 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…fter reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery, Scott is unable to establish that GML indeed had sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to subject it to the jurisdiction of a Florida court. See Avila v. Pacindat Mutual Protection & Indem. Ass’n, 528 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (plaintiff entitled to reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery on jurisdictional issue and amend pleading, if necessary). [*510] AFFIRMED; remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Frankel v. City OF Miami Beach, 340 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1976)
- Cole v. Arkansas, 338 U.S. 345 (U.S. 1949)
- Coffelt v. Ark. State Hwy. Comm'n, 479 U.S. 1090 (U.S. 1987)
- Reddish v. Forlines, 207 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- Moore v. Freeman, 396 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- A & B Pipe & Supply Co. v. Turnberry Towers Corp. & Turnberry Corp., 500 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Lovelace v. Sobrino, 280 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Unitech Corp. v. Atl. Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 472 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Royal Netherlands S.S. Co. v. Elida Quinto de Garcia, 489 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- McCAULEY v. Bruder & Sons, Inc., 486 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)