Opinion ID: 2737915
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant Svorai

Text: Kammona also argues that the district court erred in quashing service as to Svorai. “A defendant must show invalidity of service by clear and convincing 6 Case: 13-14085 Date Filed: 09/29/2014 Page: 7 of 17 proof before being entitled to an order granting a motion to quash.” McLean v. Church of Scientology of Cal., 538 F. Supp. 545, 547 (M.D. Fla. 1982). Any conflict in the parties’ affidavits or pleadings should be resolved in favor of the plaintiff. See Madara v. Hall, 916 F.2d 1510, 1514 (11th Cir. 1990); Atlantic Lines, Ltd. v. M/V Domburgh, 473 F. Supp. 700, 703 (S.D. Fla. 1979). After employing several process servers due to purported difficulties in locating Svorai’s correct address, Kammona turned to the Broward County Sheriff’s Office to serve Svorai. Kammona subsequently filed a Return of Service showing that the Sheriff’s Office served Svorai with a copy of the summons and complaint by leaving it with Svorai’s father at 1065 Lyon Tree Street, Hollywood, FL 33019, after previously attempting service five times. Svorai filed a verified motion to quash service, stating only that “[a]t all times material hereto,” he “did not reside at 1065 Lyon Tree Street, Hollywood FL 33019, in fact, the Defendant herein resided in Miami-Dade County.” Kammona then responded that the service was not defective because, among other reasons, the address is the same one listed on Svorai’s driver’s license. See Baker v. Stearns Bank, N.A., 84 So.3d 1122, 1126 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012) (including a photocopy of current driver’s license substantiated “usual place of abode”); see also Vidal v. Perez, 720 So. 2d 605, 606 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998) (“Florida law requires that a driver keep current the address for his or her motor vehicle 7 Case: 13-14085 Date Filed: 09/29/2014 Page: 8 of 17 registration and driver’s license”). Svorai did not contest that the process was served at the address on Svorai’s license. However, the court granted the motion and quashed service on the basis that Kammona’s assertions did not “contradict” Svorai’s assertion that Svorai does not reside at the address served. In so doing, the district court failed to construe reasonable inferences and resolve conflicts in the plaintiff’s favor. 5 See Madara, 916 F.2d at 1514. With only a bare assertion that Svorai did not reside at the address served, absent support or any rebuttal to Kammona’s evidence, Svorai did not overcome Kammona’s evidence with clear and convincing proof that the service was invalid. Consequently, the district court erred in granting Svorai’s motion to quash. See McLean, 538 F. Supp. at 547. We vacate the court’s order granting Svorai’s motion to quash service and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.