HEFTEL BROADCASTING CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND ADVERTISING, INC., 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 service of process was improper because the secretary was not an authorized agent of the defendant corporation.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract and tortious interference. The summons and complaint were delivered to a secretary of a wholly…
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 Sufficiency Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Heftel Broadcasting Corporation (“Heftel”), appeals a non-final order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficiency of process. We reverse.
Appellee, Professional Services and Advertising, Inc., (“PSA”) sued Heftel for breach of contract alleging Heftel refused to provide agreed-upon radio air time to PSA and tor-tiously interfered with its advertising clients. The summons and complaint were delivered to a seeretaiy who worked for a wholly owned subsidiary of Heftel.
PSA’s service of process upon Heftel was improper because the secretary was neither an employee, nor a director, officer, business agent, or registered agent of Heftel. See § 48.081, Fla. Stat. (1995); Richardson v. Albury, 505 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions that the service be quashed with leave to effect proper service upon Heftel. See Abbate v. Provident National Bank, 631 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Sierra Holding, Inc. v. Inn Keepers Supply Co., 464 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
Although this determination renders it unnecessary to address Heftel’s remaining issue on appeal, we find no error in the trial court’s denial of Heftel’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Payless Drug Stores Northwest, Inc. v. Innovative Clothing Exchange, Inc., 615 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Industrial Cas. Ins. Co. v. Consultant Associates, Inc., 603 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Indus. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Consultant Assocs., Inc., 603 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Abbate v. Provident Nat'l Bank, 631 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Sierra Holding, Inc. v. INN Keepers Supply Co., 464 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Payless Drug Stores Nw., Inc. v. Innovative Clothing Exch., Inc., 615 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Richardson v. Albury, 505 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)