EFTA00729881.pdf

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA CASE NO: 50 2008 CA 006596 XXXX MB JANE DOE, by and through JANE DOE'S MOTHER as parent and natural guardian, Plaintiffs, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, sand Defendants. DEFENDANT MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS AND SET ASIDE CLERK'S DEFAULT Defendant , pursuant to Rules 1.500(d) and 1.140(b)(5) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, moves the Court. first, to quash service of process, and second, to set aside the clerk's default entered against her on June 6, and as grounds for this relief respectfully states as follows: EFTA00729881  Introduction The attempt at substituted service on Ms. did not comply with Florida procedure, and must therefore be quashed. This Court, on grounds of insufficient service of process, does not have jurisdiction to enter a default. Discussion A. The attempt at substituted service of process was ineffective. is a resident of New York. In an effort to effect substituted service on Ms. a process server left copies of the pertinent summons and complaint with a nonresident doorkeeper who works at in New York, a multiunit apartment building where Ms. maintains a personal residence. This attempt at substituted service did not comply with Florida procedure. To serve someone in New York in the context of a Florida lawsuit, an "officer authorized to serve process in [New York]" is required, under section 48.194, Florida Statutes, to effect service "in the same manner as service within [Florida]." § 48.194(1), Fla. Stat. (2007). To say it another way, service must conform to Florida procedure—not New York procedure. Under Florida law, service of process can be effected "by leaving the copies [of the summons and complaint] at [the defendant's] usual place of abode with any person residing therein who is 15 years of age or older and informing the person EFTA00729882 of their contents." § 48.031(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis added). It is well settled that "[s]tatutes governing service of process should be strictly construed." E.g., York Commc'ns, Inc. v. Furst Group, Inc., 724 So.2d 678, 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). In construing section 48.194(1)(a), it is clear that the above doorkeeper was not a "person residing" in Ms. "usual place of abode" for purposes of effecting service. See Schupak v. Sutton Hill Assocs., 710 So. 2d 707, 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ("A fortiori, leaving process with an apartment doorman in the apartment lobby is insufficient service."); accord Smith v. FDIC, 711 So. 2d 1367, 1368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (per curiam) (holding that service of process was ineffective where summons and complaint were left with a doorkeeper at the defendant's New York City apartment building). B. This Court has not yet acquired personal jurisdiction over Ms. Because there has been no effective service of process, as set forth above, this Court has not yet acquired personal jurisdiction over . See Shuman v. Atlantic Mortgage & Inv. Corp., 795 So. 2d 952, 953 (Fla. 2001) ("It is well settled that the fundamental purpose of service [of process] is `to give proper notice to the defendant in the case that he is answerable to the claim of plaintiff and, therefore, to vest jurisdiction in the court entertaining the controversy.") (quoting State ex rel. Merritt v. Heffernan, 195 So. 145, 147 (Fla. 1940)) (emphasis EFTA00729883 added). Cf. Borden v. East-European Ins. Co., 921 So. 2d 587, 591 (Fla. 2006) (stating that service of process is "necessary before a defendant . . . may be compelled to answer a claim brought in a court of law"); see also Space Coast Credit Union v. The First, F.A., 467 So. 2d 737, 739 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (observing that "[i]f the court fails to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant in the proper manner, its judgment is void") (citations omitted) (emphasis added). For these reasons above, the purported service of process must be quashed, and the clerk's default must be set aside as void. WHEREFORE, respectfully requests an Order quashing the purported service of process, and setting aside the clerk's default entered against her on June 6. EFTA00729884