Court Opinion

ID: 9780998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 15:09:58.479409+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:17.205364
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                        Opinion filed August 30, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                              No. 3D22-878
                       Lower Tribunal No. 19-35002
                          ________________

           Gazul Producciones SL Unipersonal, etc.,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                       SHEDDF2-FL5 LLC, etc.,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alan Fine,
Judge.

      Burr & Forman LLP, Laurence S. Litow and Andrew T. Sarangoulis
(Fort Lauderdale); Burr & Forman LLP, and Peter C. Vilmos (Orlando); The
Ferraro Law Firm, P.A., Leslie B. Rothenberg and Mathew D. Gutierrez, for
appellant.

      Agentis PLLC | Lynx Law PLLC, and Christopher B. Spuches, for
appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and HENDON and GORDO, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See Starks v. Howard, 611 So. 2d 52, 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)

(“A party submits to the jurisdiction of the court and waives jurisdictional

defects by taking a step in the proceeding amounting to an appearance.”);

Laura M. Watson, P.A. v. Stewart Tilghman Fox & Bianchi, P.A., 162 So. 3d

102, 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (“Florida law is well established that service of

process, and any defect in service of process, can be waived by the general

appearance of a party before the trial court.”); Parra v. Raskin, 647 So. 2d

1010, 1011 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“[W]hen a defendant waives an objection to

insufficient service of process by failing to timely object, the defendant

thereby consents to litigate the action and the court may not, either on the

defendant’s motion or its own initiative, dismiss the suit for insufficient service

of process.”).

                                        2