U.S. Viggo, Inc. v. Loftis
| Decision Date | 08 July 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-01671,91-01671 |
| Citation | 601 So.2d 1314 |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Weekly D1682 U.S. VIGGO, INC., The BOC Group, Inc., and The BOC Group, PLC., Appellants, v. Richard T. LOFTIS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Peter J. Hurtgen and Wayne D. Rutman of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Miami, for appellants.
James A. Muench of Smith & Williams, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.
We affirm the final judgment against U.S. Viggo, Inc. and The BOC Group, Inc. See Telesphere Int'l, Inc. v. Scollin, 489 So.2d 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 500 So.2d 546 (1986). However, for the reasons explained below we reverse the final judgment against The BOC Group, plc., which is identified as a company incorporated in England.
No personal jurisdiction is shown to have been acquired over the English corporation through either actual or constructive service of process or by a general appearance reflecting a submission to jurisdiction. In that latter regard and contrary to the argument of plaintiff, we conclude that there was no pleading filed by or on behalf of the English corporation which constituted such a general appearance.
The Motion for Enlargement of Time for the filing of responsive pleadings which was filed by counsel on behalf of the English corporation did not constitute a general appearance. See Barrios v. Sunshine State Bank, 456 So.2d 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). While a Motion for Continuance of the trial date was filed and we are not inclined to disagree that a defendant's motion of that kind constitutes a general appearance, see Williamsburg Village Owners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Lauder Associates, 181 Ill.App.3d 931, 934, 537 N.E.2d 857, 859-60 (Ill.App.Ct.1989), we need not decide that issue. The reason is that, although the body of that motion in this case reads as though it was filed on behalf of the English corporation which had been named in an amended complaint as an additional defendant, the signature portion of the motion and additional facts show otherwise, as we will explain.
The Motion for Continuance was served thirteen days after the filing of an amended complaint adding the English corporation as an additional defendant and five days after the case had been scheduled for trial thirty-three days hence. The body of the motion includes the following paragraphs:
6. The newly added Defendants cannot adequately prepare for trial on such short notice and require sufficient time to conduct discovery in preparation for trial.
7. In the interest of expediency, Defendants are submitting this motion without the signatures of the litigants as required by Fla.R.Civ. P. 1.460 and Rule 2.085(c) of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. This is necessary because the undersigned attorneys cannot immediately obtain the signatures of the litigants as one of the Defendants is outside the United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Department of Revenue v. Wrobel, 98-0994.
...never appeared before the court, and did not even have notice that it could be subject to attorneys fees. See U.S. Viggo, Inc. v. Loftis, 601 So.2d 1314, 1315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Second, granting the requested relief would be contrary to the public policy of the State of Florida. It is in t......