Deep Sea Atl. N.V. v. Mical Seafood, Inc., 264 So. 3d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). · Go Syfert
Search
Deep Sea Atl. N.V. v. Mical Seafood, Inc., 264 So. 3d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: DARWIN RIVERA ALMODOVAR v. STATE OF FLORIDA (fladistctapp, 2020-04-15)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" DARWIN RIVERA ALMODOVAR v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hawkins v. State, 264 So. 3d 1003 , 1004–07 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (quashing trial court’s order denying the defendant’s motion for discharge and directing trial court to conduct a Rule 3.191(j) inquiry even though the recapture window had already expired). -4- Massey v. Graziano, 564 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), and Ariza v. Cycmanick, 548 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), do not compel a different conclusion.
cited Cited "see" DARWIN RIVERA ALMODOVAR v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hawkins v. State, 264 So. 3d 1003, 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
DEEP SEA ATLANTIC N.V., a Suriname Naamloze Vennootschap
v.
MICAL SEAFOOD, INC., a Florida corporation
No. 4D18-1603.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Mar 6, 2019.
264 So. 3d 1003
Daniel Lustig, Michael J. Pike and Dominique J. Torsiello of Pike & Lustig, LLP, West Palm Beach, for appellant., William G. Salim, Jr. and Ari J. Glazer of Moskowitz, Mandell, Salim & Simowitz, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
Published
Per Curiam.

We dismiss that portion of this appeal challenging an order denying dismissal under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j). We do not have jurisdiction of orders denying dismissal under this rule, as such orders are not orders determining "jurisdiction of the person." Jennings v. Montenegro , 792 So.2d 1258, 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). We affirm on all other issues as appellant did not overcome the presumption that arises from a return of service that is regular on its face. See Koster v. Sullivan , 103 So.3d 882, 884 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Warner, Gross and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.