Emery Worldwide, Inc. v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America
Florida District Court of Appeal
797 So. 2d 623 (2001)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Indemnity Insurance Company of North America (Indemnity) (defendant) filed an action against Emery Worldwide, Inc, (Emery) (plaintiff). Indemnity then moved to issue a writ-of-garnishment against Emery. Indemnity served the writ on Xavier Jasso, who the process server described as the general manager at Emery’s Miami-Dade County office. Indemnity’s affidavit-of-service stated that Jasso was served because there were no superior officers present in Emery’s office at the time of service. Because Emery did not respond to the writ, the trial court entered a clerk’s-default against Emery, which Indemnity then moved to have entered as a final default-judgment. Emery filed a motion-to-vacate the clerk’s-default and a motion-to-quash service-of-process, arguing that service-of-process was defective because (1) Indemnity failed to serve Emery’s Florida registered agent; (2) Jasso was a low-level manager, not the general manager, and was not authorized to accept service on Emery’s behalf; and (3) even if Jasso were a general manager, under Florida’s hierarchy-of-service for corporations, service should have been effected on Emery’s vice-president, who was in the office at the time of service, rather than on Jasso. The trial court denied Emery’s motion to quash service-of-process, holding that Emery had failed to present sufficient clear-and-convincing evidence that service-of-process was defective. Emery appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.