Ansari Mohamad v. Central Florida Tax and Accounting, Inc., Anees Ahmand Tanoli, Lawgical Insight, LLC, Andrew Bauta, Michael Russo, Rottenstreich Farley Bronstein Fisher Potter Hodas LLP, Meliza Miller, and Richard I. Segal

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida grants defendants Anees Ahmand Tanoli and Central Florida Tax and Accounting, Inc.’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. The court concludes that service on Tanoli and CFTAS did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 or Florida law, and that the defendants did not waive the defense by opposing a motion for default. The claims against both defendants are dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m).

Holdings

1. Service on Tanoli was insufficient because Mohamad invoked Florida Statutes section 48.081, which applies to service on corporations rather than individual defendants, and failed to establish strict compliance with the requirements for substituted service on an individual.
2. Service on CFTAS was insufficient because Mohamad did not establish that Afzal was an officer, managing or general agent, or other agent authorized to receive service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(1)(B) or Florida law.
3. Tanoli and CFTAS did not waive their objections to service by appearing to oppose Mohamad's motion for default.
4. Because Tanoli and CFTAS were not timely served, had not waived the defense, and Mohamad showed neither good cause nor other circumstances warranting an extension, dismissal without prejudice was appropriate under Rule 4(m).

Questions Presented

1. Whether service on Tanoli was valid under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 or Florida law when Mohamad used Florida Statutes section 48.081, a provision governing service on corporations.
2. Whether service on CFTAS was valid when the process server left the summons and complaint with an alleged company manager but the record did not establish that the individual was an officer, managing or general agent, or authorized agent under federal or Florida law.
3. Whether Tanoli and CFTAS waived objections to service by appearing to oppose Mohamad's motion for default.
4. Whether dismissal without prejudice was required or an extension of time for service was warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

Disposition

dismissed