ROSALIND STECK WHITE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF MARKETING PRODUCTIONS, INC., F/K/A MALL PRODUCTIONS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
JUNE L. WATTS, AND MARKETING PRODUCTIONS, INC., F/K/A MALL PRODUCTIONS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Shareholder Derivative Action cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Rosalind Steck White, the plaintiff who brought a shareholder’s derivative suit, appeals an order enforcing a settlement agreement with June L. Watts and Marketing Productions, Inc. We reverse because the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the corporation.
Ms. White filed this action in January, 1996. To meet the requirements of a derivative action the complaint named the corporation and was verified by Ms. White. Although the corporation was a named defendant, Ms. White never served it. In a shareholder’s derivative action, the corporation is an indispensable party defendant. See Alario v. Miller, 354 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Without completed service of process, there is no personal jurisdiction over the corporation.
Because no jurisdiction was obtained over the defendant corporation, no judgment could be entered against it.
Reversed.
PATTERSON, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dimick v. Est. OF Richard K. Barry, 787 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…eged that the person controlling these three entities, Richard K. Barry (the decedent), was guilty of fraud and malfeasance. The three entities, now controlled by the personal representative, are hostile to any derivative action. See White v. Watts, 716 So. 2d 293, 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (“In a shareholder’s derivative action, the corporation is an indispensable party defendant.”). See also Liddy v. Urbanek, 707 F. 2d 1222 (11th Cir.1983) (if complaint alleges that dominant officials are guilty of malfeasance…
Authorities Cited
- Alario v. Miller, 354 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)