Legal Opinion
Golden State Industries, Inc. v. Cueto
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided April 14, 2004No. 3D02-2965Published
1Dissent 1
REVISED DISSENT
2Dissent · CopeCope, J.
I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion’s analysis is contrary to established precedent.
I
The majority opinion says that California Golden State waived its objection to personal jurisdiction. Majority opinion at 7. That is not so. The plaintiff served the complaint on Phil Zamel in California. There was no timely response and the court entered a default.
Subsequently California Golden State filed a Motion to Vacate Default, attached to which was a proposed answer and affirmative defenses. Golden State’s Second Affirmative Defense says: “This Court does not have personal…
3Cases cited6 opinions
- Venetian Salami Co. v. ParthenaisSupreme Court of Florida · 1989
- Cumberland Software, Inc. v. GREAT AM. MORTG.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1987
- Cinkat Transp., Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992
- MTB Banking Corp. v. Bergamo Da SilvaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992
- McDougle v. StateCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 2000
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.