The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
ALEXANDER LEISTER,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 6:24-cv-511-WWB-LHP
LEGAL ACTION BUREAU, INC.,
Defendant
ORDER
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following
motion filed herein:
MOTION: PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED MOTION FOR
ENTRY OF CLERK’S DEFAULT AGAINST LEGAL
ACTION BUREAU, INC. (Doc. No. 29)
FILED: October 28, 2024
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without
prejudice.
The Court has extended the deadline for service in this case on three prior
occasions, rendering the deadline for Plaintiff to effect service on Defendant
October 28, 2024. Doc. Nos. 13, 20, 24. Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s third
attempt at obtaining a Clerk’s default against Defendant, for failure to timely
appear or otherwise defend. Doc. No. 29. According to the motion, the address
for Defendant’s registered agent is residential, and service was attempted on four
occasions at that address with no success. Id. at 4 (citing Doc. No. 7). So, Plaintiff
attempted to serve an officer, Julissa Santacruz, PVP, at the address listed in Florida
public records, which is a private mailbox. Id. at 5. Because the address was a
private mailbox, on September 20, 2024, the process server left the documents with
“Issac, Front Desk Clerk,” stating “UPS Clerk Isaac accepted docs to place in box.”
Doc. No. 28. Plaintiff says service was proper under Florida law, Fla. Stat. §§
48.031(6)(a), 48.081(5)(b)–(c). Doc. No. 29, at 4–5.
Upon review, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that service was proper.
Florida law provides that a domestic corporation may be served by service on the
registered agent. Fla. Stat. § 48.081(2). If the registered agent’s address is a
residence, service may be effected on “[a]ny person listed by the domestic
corporation . . . on its latest annual report,” or by serving persons specified, such as
“[t]he chair of the board of directors, the president, any vice president, the secretary,
or the treasurer” in accordance with Fla. Stat. § 48.031. Id. § 48.081(5)(b)–(c). Fla.
Stat. § 48.031 in turn, provides that “[i]f the only address for a person to be served
which is discoverable through public records is a private mailbox, . . . substituted
service may be made by leaving a copy of the process with the person in charge of
the private mailbox, . . . but only if the process server determines that the person to
be served maintains a mailbox . . . at that location.” Id. § 48.031(6)(a).
The Court accepts the process server’s statement that the address for the
registered agent was residential. See Doc. No. 7. So, it appears that Plaintiff was
permitted to serve the other persons specified in Fla. Stat. § 48.081(5), in accordance
with Fla. Stat. § 48.031. But the statute under which Plaintiff seeks to proceed—
Fla. Stat. § 48.031(6)(a)—applies under only certain circumstances, which Plaintiff
has not demonstrated here.
Specifically, “Section 48.031(6)(a) only permits substitute service at a private
mailbox if (1) it is the only address discoverable through the public records, and (2)
the process server determines that the person to be served maintains a mailbox at
that location.” Weinstock v. Harvey, No. 8:19-cv-2979-T-33AEP, 2020 WL 13133417,
at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 29, 2020) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Here,
Plaintiff includes in the motion a conclusory statement that “[t]he only publicly
available address for Julissa [Santacruz] is 4417 13th Street, Suite 141, Saint Cloud,
Florida 34769.” Doc. No. 29, at 4. But Plaintiff submits nothing to support this
statement. And notably, records for the Florida Department of State, Division of
Corporations, reflect at least one additional address—the principal address for the
corporation—that Plaintiff does not address.1 And while the return of service cites
the language of Fla. Stat. § 48.031(6)(a), the return of service does not demonstrate
that 4417 13th Street, Suite 141, Saint Cloud, Florida was the only address publicly
available for Julissa Santacruz, nor does it state that the process server confirmed
that Julissa Santacruz maintains a mailbox at that location. Doc. No. 28.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 29) is DENIED without prejudice.
See, e.g., Schemming v. Daman Transp. Servs., Inc., No. 8:19-cv-400-T-35JSS, 2019 WL
13270775, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 2, 2019) (denying without prejudice Clerk’s default
where the return of service was silent as to the requirements set forth in Fla. Stat. §
48.031(6)(a)); Plumbers & Pipefitters Loc. Union No. 803 v. Adler Mech., Inc., No. 6:15-
cv-877-Orl-28GJK, 2018 WL 7954543, at *3 (M.D. Fla. May 1, 2018) (similar).
Plaintiff shall file a renewed motion within fourteen (14) days of the date of this
Order, which must establish, by citation to evidence and legal authority, that service
has been properly effected on Defendant.
1 Records with Florida’s Department of State, Division of Corporations, are
available at https://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/ByName by entering
“Legal Action Bureau” in the “Entity Name” field.
Failure to do so will result in a recommendation to the presiding District
Judge that this case be dismissed for failure to effect timely service.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 30, 2024.
Ayn
LESLIE AN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties
-5-