NAVIERA BLANCAMAR, S.A., APPELLANT,
v.
PETER BOUCHER, CARLOS ARRIOLA, NATIVIDAD ARRIOLA, MARIO ALBERTO MENDEZ, PRIMO CASTILLO, ANTONIS KLEONIKIS, AND JUAN ANTONIO RAMOS, 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.
The court held that service of process was insufficient because the agent served did not represent the defendant foreign corporation.
Plaintiffs sued a foreign vessel owner and its charterer, serving the owner by serving the agent of the charterer. The agent submitted an affidavit st…
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 Competent Proof cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Naviera Blancamar, S.A., defendant below, appeals an order denying its motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. We reverse.
Naviera Blancamar is a foreign corporation which owns the vessel “M/V Corain 2.” It is chartered and operated by a foreign shipping line, defendant Lineas Agro-mar, S.A. The charterer/operator is represented in Miami by Delmar Steamship Agency, Inc. Plaintiffs brought suit against Naviera Blancamar and Lineas Agromar. They served Naviera Blancamar, the foreign owner, by serving Delmar, the local agent for the charterer/operator, Lineas Agro-mar. Naviera Blancamar moved to dismiss, supported by an affidavit of Delmar stating that Delmar has no relationship with Naviera Blancamar. Plaintiffs did not submit opposing affidavits, but countered with several documents, none of which is accompanied by an affidavit showing its origin or admissibility, and none of which appears dispositive of the issue. In order to defeat the motion to quash service it was necessary for plaintiffs to submit affidavits or other competent proof rebutting defendant’s assertions. See Cameron v. Odissea Shipping Co., 486 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Biscayne Athletic Club, Inc. v. Iacono, 367 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Plaintiffs also contend that they were unable to contravene defendant’s affidavit because of discovery objections by defendant. That issue is not before us and should be addressed by the trial court in the first instance.
The order denying the motion to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. .
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lakeram Chatarpaul v. Colbert, 564 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…ER CURIAM. For two reasons, we reverse the trial court’s order which denied appellant’s motion to quash service. As appellant points out, appellees’ affidavit fails to rebut appellant’s by competent proof. See Naviera Blancamar, S.A. v. Boucher, 547 So. 2d 1034, 1035 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Appellees failed to provide the [*293] trial court with competent proof that the adult woman named Jennifer (no last name given) upon whom service was made was residing in appellant’s household and was a proper recipient of…
Authorities Cited
- Biscayne Athletic Club, Inc. v. Iacono, 367 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- McCAULEY v. Bruder & Sons, Inc., 486 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Cameron v. Odissea Shipping Co., 486 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)