Opinion ID: 1610462
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: service of process/personal jurisdiction

Text: Because DCF did not waive its objection to the circuit court's personal jurisdiction, we will now address the merits of the objection. Sun-Sentinel argues that it was not required to serve DCF with the petition because section 119.07(7)(a) does not contain an explicit service of process requirement. Section 119.07(7)(b), on the other hand, does contain an explicit service of process requirement: In cases involving serious bodily injury to a child or a vulnerable adult, the Department of Children and Family Services may petition the court for an order for the immediate public release of records of the department which pertain to the protective investigation. The petition must be personally served upon the child or vulnerable adult, the child's parents or guardian, the legal guardian of that person, if any, and any person named as an alleged perpetrator in the report of abuse, neglect, abandonment, or exploitation. § 119.07(7)(b), Fla. Stat. (2002) (emphasis added). Sun-Sentinel argues that if the Legislature had intended to require that petitions filed under section 119.07(7)(a) be served on the agency, it could have included an express provisionjust as it did in subsection 7(b). Because it did not, Sun-Sentinel argues, formal service of process is not required. We reject this argument and hold that a section 119.07(7)(a) petitioner must serve DCF with the petition. The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure apply to all actions of a civil nature. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.010. Rule 1.050 provides that civil actions are commenced when the complaint or petition is filed. Rule 1.070 provides that [u]pon the commencement of the action, summons or other process authorized by law shall be issued. Section 48.031(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2002), states that [s]ervice of original process is made by delivering a copy of it to the person to be served with a copy of the complaint, petition, or other initial pleading. (Emphasis added.) Section 48.111(2), Florida Statutes (2002), provides that [p]rocess against any public agency, board, commission, or department not a body corporate ... shall be served on the public officer being sued or the chief executive officer of the agency, board, commission, or department. We do noteven when we read subsection (7)(a) together with subsection (7)(b), as Sun-Sentinel suggestsperceive a legislative intent to forego formal service of process under subsection (7)(a). The fact that the Legislature explicitly named certain individuals that DCF must serve when it files a petition pursuant to section 119.07(7)(b) does not necessarily control our construction of section 119.07(7)(a), which contains no such provision. Section 119.07(7)(b) requires DCF to serve those parties whose interests must be balanced by the court when it conducts the good-cause analysis. When DCF files such a petition, it is requesting the immediate public release of these records. It seems reasonable to assume that the Legislature thought it important, in such situations, to alert those parties whose interests will be affected by such release, allowing them to participate in the proceeding to determine whether good cause to release the records exists. When a private party files a petition pursuant to section 119.07(7)(a), it is unlikely that the party would know the identities and locations of the interested parties. Much of this information will be known only to DCF. To have included an explicit service of process requirement similar to the one contained in subsection 7(b) would have been unworkable (the petitioner cannot serve parties of whom he is unaware) and unnecessary (when DCF is served, it will then be able to alert the court to the identities of interested persons). It therefore seems more reasonable to conclude that the Legislature did not intend to forego formal service of process by failing to include an explicit requirement. This civil action to make public the records that were otherwise confidential was commenced when Sun-Sentinel filed the section 119.07(7)(a) petition. Sun-Sentinel was then required to comply with the above-stated rules regarding service of process. Because these records are maintained by DCF, Sun-Sentinel was required to serve DCF with the petition. Because it did not, the circuit court erred in denying DCF's motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction. [10]