Doe v. White, 96-2139
| Decision Date | 31 January 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-2139,96-2139 |
| Citation | 687 So.2d 59 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly D322 Jane DOE, Individually, and as Parent and Next Friend of the minor children, etc., Appellant, v. Jonathan Alphanso WHITE, etc., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James K. Laroe of James K. Laroe, P.C., Dallas, TX; and F. Douglas McKnight of F. Douglas McKnight, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.
Robert E. Warren of Moseley, Warren, Prichard & Parrish, Jacksonville, for Appellee Jonathan Alphanso White.
No Appearance for other Appellees.
Jane Doe, individually and as parent and next friend of the minor children, Sally Doe and Sam Doe, appeals the order setting aside the default judgment and quashing service of process on defendant Jonathan Alphanso White, a resident of Jamaica. Doe argues that the court erred in holding White was immune from service of process at the time he was served. We agree and reverse.
The Doe family was vacationing on The Big Red Boat in August, 1995, when thirteen year old Sally Doe reported that White, a crew member, had sexually assaulted her while at sea. The Big Red Boat sails out of Cape Canaveral, Florida. When the boat docked at Cape Canaveral, Brevard County sheriff's deputies boarded the ship to investigate the accusation. The deputies asked White to accompany them to their office, which White did. White gave a statement implicating himself and was arrested. He never did return to the ship.
White was acquitted of the federal criminal charges based on the prosecution's failure to establish the location of the ship when the assault occurred. Because of a hold placed on White by the United States Border Patrol, White was not free to leave the courtroom following the court's pronouncement of the directed verdict. Instead, he was placed in the custody of the Border Patrol until he could be put on a plane for Jamaica the next day. While White was in a holding cell awaiting his departure time, White was served by Doe with process in the instant case. White flew out of the United States several hours later and apparently has not been seen or heard from since.
Doe obtained a clerk's default in this suit based upon White's failure to respond to the complaint. White's counsel from the federal suit moved to set aside the default and sought to have service of process quashed. White argued below, and the trial court found, that White was immune from service of process while in the custody of the Border Patrol.
The immunity found applicable to White stems from the general rule 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.
Rorick v. Chancey, 130 Fla. 442, 453, 178 So. 112, 116 (1937), vacated on other grounds on rehearing, 142 Fla. 290, 195 So. 418 (1939). In Lamb v. Schmitt, 285 U.S. 222, 225, 52 S.Ct. 317, 318, 76 L.Ed. 720 (1932), the Court discussed the purpose behind the immunity rule:
The general rule that witnesses, suitors, and their attorneys, while in attendance in connection with the conduct of one suit, are immune from service of process in another, is founded, not upon the convenience of the individuals, but of the court itself. As commonly stated and applied, it proceeds upon the ground that the due administration of justice requires that a court shall not permit interference with the progress of a cause pending before it, by the service of process in other suits, which would prevent, or the fear of which might tend to discourage, the voluntary attendance of those whose presence is necessary or convenient to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial