JOEL M. WEISSMAN AND WEISSMAN & CHERNAY, P.A., APPELLANTS,
v.
J.B. JOYE AND GLORIA JOYE, HUSBAND AND WIFE, 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.
Weissman appealed the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction after multiple failed attempts at service of process. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that an order denying a motion to dismiss is not an appealable nonfinal order determining jurisdiction of the person.
The order denying the motion to dismiss is not an appealable nonfinal order determining jurisdiction of the person pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i), and the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
[1] An order denying a motion to dismiss is not an appealable nonfinal order determining jurisdiction of the person.
[2] Service of process must include a copy of the complaint attached to the summons.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 trial court's order is one denying a motion to dismiss. It is not an appealable nonfinal order determining jurisdiction of the person; we dismiss this appeal.”
Establishes the core holding that orders denying motions to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds are not immediately appealable nonfinal orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Joyes filed a legal malpractice action against Weissman and his law firm. The defendants filed a motion to quash service of process after 120 days…
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 Good Cause For Extension cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Joyes, who were the plaintiffs in this legal malpractice action, have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The trial court’s order is one denying a motion to dismiss. It is not an appealable nonfinal order determining jurisdiction of the person; we dismiss this appeal.
After 120 days from the filing of the complaint had passed, the defendants, Joel M. Weissman and Weissman & Chernay, P.A. (Weissman), filed a motion to quash service of process. Weissman successfully argued that the first two attempts at service were invalid. The first attempt failed because a copy of the complaint was not attached to the summons. The second attempt failed because the return was not endorsed properly by the process server and Weissman had not been informed of the contents of the complaint. The first two attempts at service were made within the 120-day limit.
A third attempt at service was unsuccessful because the process server was not authorized to serve process in the county in which Weissman resided. Hence, a second motion to quash was granted. The Joyes then filed a motion for extension of time to effectuate process.
Thereafter, Weissman filed a third motion to quash service. The third motion challenged the fourth attempt at service based on the premise that the ease was no longer pending when the court quashed service after the 120 days had run. The court denied the third motion, finding that good cause had been shown to prevent dismissal of the complaint. Weissman then filed a fourth motion, a motion to dismiss based solely on Florida Rule of Civil Procedure l.OJOQ.1 Weissman now appeals the denial of that motion. Weissman argues that Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 601 So. 2d 538 (Fia.1992), requires this court to entertain this appeal. We disagree. For the reasons set forth in Khandjian v. Compagnie Financiere Mediterranee Cofimed, S.A., 619 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), we find that the order is not one determining jurisdiction of the person pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Motion granted.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and FRANK and PARKER, JJ., concur. . This rule is now designated as 1.070(i).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Comisky v. Rosen Mgmt. Serv., Inc., 630 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…, the service of process itself was defective and was insufficient to obtain jurisdiction over the defendant. Thus, the court exercised its jurisdiction pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i). In contrast, in another post-Morales case, Weissman v. Joye, 619 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), where the validity of the service of process was not at issue, the same Second District panel as in Khandjian held that the order appealed was not one that determined jurisdiction of the person pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i),…
-
Vladimir Rosenthal, M.D. v. Watkins, 623 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…an alleged failure to timely effect service of process pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.070(i) is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Khandjian v. Compagnie [*856] Financiere Mediterranee Cofimed, S.A. 619 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Weissman v. Joye, 619 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). We decline to treat the proceeding as an application for certiorari because, among other reasons, it is apparent that the order, far from departing from the essential requirements of the law, was in full accordance with them. F…
-
The Sheriff OF Brevard Cnty. v. Lampman-Prusky, 634 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…DCA 1994). Contra RD & G Leasing v. Stebnicki, 626 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Rosenthal v. Watkins, 623 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Khandjian v. Compagnie Financiere Mediterranee Cofimed, 619 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Weissman v. Joye, 619 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).…
Authorities Cited
- Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 601 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1992)
- Berge O. Khandjian and Tuula Khandjian v. Compagnie Financiere Mediterranee Cofimed, S.A., 619 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)