Hannah v. Olivo
Florida District Court of Appeal
38 So. 3d 815 (2010)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
On November 1, 2007, Darlene Hannah (plaintiff) commenced a personal-injury action against Joshua Olivo (defendant). On December 27, Hannah’s process-server attempted to serve Olivo in Florida; the process-server’s affidavit-of-service stated that the service attempt was unsuccessful because Olivo had moved to Connecticut. On January 16, 2008, Olivo moved to dismiss Hannah’s action for failure to effectuate timely service-of-process, arguing that he still lived in Florida and had never moved to Connecticut. Olivo did not submit his current address. The trial court denied Olivo’s motion-to-dismiss. On February 12, 2008, Hannah filed a motion for an extension of the service-of-process deadline. The trial court gave Hannah until June 30, 2008, an additional 120 days, to effect service-of-process on Olivo. Subsequently, Hannah petitioned the court for permission to serve Olivo through the Florida Secretary of State because Olivo was evading service. The trial court denied Hannah’s motion. Hannah then moved to have Cynthia Roque appointed as a special-process-server with authorization to serve Olivo. On May 30, 2008, Roque successfully served Olivo; however, the trial court did not grant Hannah’s motion to appoint Roque as a special-process-server until June 11. Olivo moved to quash the May 30 service-of-process, arguing that it was defective because Roque was not appointed as a special-process-server until June 11. Roque served Olivo again on July 1. Olivo moved to dismiss Hannah’s action for untimely service-of-process. The trial court granted Olivo’s motion to dismiss, holding that (1) the May 30 service was invalid because Roque was not appointed as a special-process-server until June 11; and (2) the July 1 service was untimely because the extended service-of-process deadline expired on June 30. Hannah appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Evander, J.)
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.