White v. Watts, 97-04388
| Decision Date | 17 July 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-04388,97-04388 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1684 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. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Marcus A. Castillo of Haas & Castillo, P. A., Clearwater, Raymond T. Elligett, Jr., of Schropp, Buell & Elligett, P. A., Tampa, and Walter E. Aye of Walter Edwards Aye, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants.
Susan W. Fox and Josh Magidson of MacFarlane, Ferguson & McMullen, Tampa, for Appellees.
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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dimick v. Estate of Barry, 4D00-325.
...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......