Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

January 4, 2018 by admin

Jurisdiction — Service of process — Individuals who are residents of Brazil were immune from service of process while they were appearing to be deposed in Florida in their corporate capacities — Trial court erred in denying motion to quash service of process made upon individuals while they attended depositions in their corporate capacities

43
Fla. L. Weekly D85b

Jurisdiction
— Service of process — Individuals who are residents of Brazil were immune
from service of process while they were appearing to be deposed in Florida in
their corporate capacities — Trial court erred in denying motion to quash
service of process made upon individuals while they attended depositions in
their corporate capacities

LUIZ QUEIROZ, et al., Appellants, v.
BENTLEY BAY RETAIL, LLC, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D17-1604. L.T. Case
No. 16-25189. January 3, 2018. An Appeal from a non-final order from the
Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Eric William Hendon, Judge. Counsel:
Bernhard Law Firm PLLC, and Andrew J. Bernhard, for appellants. Kozyak Tropin
& Throckmorton, LLP, and Javier A. Lopez, Dyanne E. Feinberg, and Stephanie
Moncada Gomez, for appellee.
(Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and LAGOA
and LOGUE, JJ.)
(LOGUE, J.) Appellants Luiz Queiroz
and Karine Queiroz, seek review of the trial court’s orders denying their
motions to quash the service of process made upon them individually while they
attended depositions in their capacities as corporate officers of Soho Bay
Restaurant, LLC (Soho Bay), and entering sanctions against them. We reverse.
The appellee, Bentley Bay Retail,
LLC, filed suit against four defendants: Soho Bay; Luiz Queiroz; Karine
Queiroz; and Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen,
P.A. (Katz Barron).1 Soho Bay was served via its manager,
Max Heindl. Luiz and Karine Queiroz reside in Brazil and are corporate officers
of Soho Bay. The sole count against Luiz and Karine Queiroz, individually, was
for breach of personal guaranty.
Bentley Bay filed notices to take
the depositions of Luiz and Karine Queiroz. Luiz and Karine Queiroz repeatedly
tried to fend off these depositions. First, they argued that immigration issues
made it unduly burdensome for them to appear in the United States. Then they
argued they could not be deposed in Brazil. Ultimately, the trial court had to
order them to “appear for deposition in their corporate capacity.” Following a
motion for reconsideration, the trial court again ordered them to appear for
deposition. Luiz and Karine Queiroz then agreed to come to Florida to be
deposed. At the depositions, Luiz and Karine Queiroz were served with suit in
their individual capacities. They moved to quash service, arguing they were
immune from service of process because they were appearing in the jurisdiction
to be deposed in their corporate capacities. The trial court denied the appellants’
motion and this appeal followed.
Under Florida law, “[i]t is well
established . . . that witnesses and suitors in attendance in court outside of
the territorial jurisdiction of their residence are immune from service of
process while attending court and for a reasonable time before and after going
to court and in returning to their homes.” Murphy & Jordan, Inc. v. Ins.
Co. of N. Am.
, 278 So. 2d 296, 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) (citation omitted).
Bentley Bay argues that this case
falls within an exception to Murphy. “Murphy recognized that its
rule of immunity to process does not apply when there is (1) identity of
parties and (2) identity of issues.” Id. (citations omitted). Here,
however, there was no identity of the parties.
Luiz and Karine Queiroz were appearing
in their corporate capacities. Bentley Bay wants to serve them in their
individual capacity. For purposes of immunity from service of process, there is
no identity of a person in their corporate capacity and individual capacity. Murphy,
278 So. 2d at 296-97 (finding that the exception to the immunity rule did not
apply where individual named defendants were served with process at a
deposition where they appeared in their corporate capacities). This case
therefore does not fall within the exception.
Bentley Bay, however, argues that
Luiz and Karine Queiroz have sufficient minimum contacts to subject them to
jurisdiction under Florida’s long-arm statute, section 48.193, Florida
Statutes. See Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499,
502 (Fla. 1989). Whether Luiz and Karine Queiroz are subject to long-arm
jurisdiction, an issue we do not decide, is irrelevant to our ruling. Even if
they are subject to long-arm jurisdiction, Luiz and Karine Queiroz still need
to be served. Under Murphy, they cannot be served while attending a
court-ordered deposition.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial
court’s order denying the motion to quash service and to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The sanctions order established Bentley Bay’s entitlement to fees “expended on
these matters.” We reverse the sanctions order to the extent it awards
sanctions specifically related to the motions to quash and dismiss for lack of
service.
Reversed and remanded.
__________________
1Soho Bay and Katz Barron are not
parties to this appeal.
* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982