Steadman et al v. Landair Transport, Inc. et al

Filing 17

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 6 Motion to Quash. Defendants' Motion to Quash Service of Process, and Motion to Dismiss(Doc. 6) is GRANTED to the limited extent that the substitute service issued in state court andeffected upon Defendants shall be quashed, but is DENIED in all other respects, including as tothe service effected upon Defendant Landair's registered agent. Pursuant to Federal Rule of CivilProcedure 4(m), Plaintiffs shall have an additional 30 days, if necessary, to complete service uponDefendant William Harvey. Upon request by Plaintiffs, the Clerk is directed to reissue asummons as to Defendant William Harvey.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 9/17/2014. (JWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
MICHAEL R. STEADMAN and JUDITH
STEADMAN,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 5:14-cv-464-Oc-PRL

LANDAIR TRANSPORT, INC. and
WILLIAM MESHAWN HARVEY
Defendants.

ORDER
This case, alleging negligence arising from a motor vehicle accident, comes before the
Court for consideration of Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service of Process, and Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Jurisdiction over the Defendants (Doc. 6), to which Plaintiffs have responded (Doc.
10).
Defendants have made a special appearance for the purpose of moving to quash the service
of process as to both Defendants, and to dismiss the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction over
Defendants. Defendants contend that personal service of Defendants Landair Transport, Inc., and
William Harvey, was not perfected. Instead, Defendants contend that Plaintiff improperly served
Alias Summons on the Secretary of State as Registered Agent for Defendants, and that such
substitute service was improper, and should be quashed.
In response, Plaintiffs state they obtained personal service on Defendant Landair, and are
not contending that substitute service was made on either Defendant. Plaintiffs concede they did
initially attempt to serve both Defendants via the substitute service process set forth in Florida

Statutes § 48.171. Plaintiffs explain that prior to the case being removed, they had the process
reissued for personal service upon both Defendants in order to avoid any procedural dispute over
service of process. Plaintiffs state that Defendant Landair was personally served on August 19,
2014 by the corporation’s designated agent. Finally, Plaintiffs assert that the proper remedy
would be to quash the service of substituted service and permit Plaintiffs to obtain personal service
upon the Defendants. The Court agrees.
As it appears Plaintiffs have already obtained personal service upon the registered agent
for Defendant Landair (Ex. 1 to Doc. 10), Plaintiffs need only complete personal service upon
Defendant William Harvey. In light of the dispute between the parties regarding whether service
was proper, and the discovery that Defendant Harvey is believed to reside in Georgia, the Court
finds that good cause exists to extend the time for service, if necessary, under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(m).
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service of Process, and Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 6) is GRANTED to the limited extent that the substitute service issued in state court and
effected upon Defendants shall be quashed, but is DENIED in all other respects, including as to
the service effected upon Defendant Landair’s registered agent. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(m), Plaintiffs shall have an additional 30 days, if necessary, to complete service upon
Defendant William Harvey.

Upon request by Plaintiffs, the Clerk is directed to reissue a

summons as to Defendant William Harvey.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on September 17, 2014.

-2-

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-3-