Scheb v. Shalam Imports, Inc.
656 So. 2d 956, 1995 WL 370486, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6775 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080(a), an amended complaint does not need to be served on a defaulted party in the formal manner provided for a summons unless the amendment asserts new or additional claims against that party.
Facts:
- James Scheb sustained injuries while using a product.
- The product was distributed by Shalam Imports, Inc. (Shalam).
- Scheb purchased the product from a separate corporate entity.
- The claims against Shalam in the original and amended complaints were for negligence, strict liability in tort, and breach of implied warranty.
Procedural Posture:
- James Scheb filed a complaint against Shalam Imports, Inc. in a Florida trial court.
- Shalam was properly served with the complaint but failed to answer, and a clerk's default was entered against it.
- Scheb later filed an amended complaint, which corrected the name of a co-defendant but did not change the allegations against Shalam.
- Scheb served the amended complaint on Shalam by U.S. mail.
- The trial court rendered a final judgment against Shalam.
- Fourteen months after the final judgment, Shalam filed a motion to vacate the default and judgment, arguing the amended complaint required formal service.
- The trial court granted Shalam's motion, vacating the final judgment as void.
- Scheb, the appellant, appealed the trial court's order vacating the judgment to the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080(a) require formal service of an amended complaint on a party already in default when the amendment only corrects the name of a co-defendant and does not assert any new or additional claims against the defaulted party?
Opinions:
Majority - Lazzara, Judge
No. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080(a) does not require new formal service of process for an amended complaint that does not assert new or additional claims against a defaulted party. The rule's purpose is to satisfy due process by ensuring a defendant is only held liable for claims they were originally notified of and had a chance to contest. When a defendant defaults, they effectively confess to the claims in the original pleading. If an amended pleading introduces new claims, formal service is required to give notice of this new potential liability. However, where an amendment, such as correcting a co-defendant's name, does not alter the claims against the defaulted party, the original service of process remains sufficient to maintain personal jurisdiction, and service of the amended complaint by mail is adequate.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the "new or additional claims" exception under Florida's rules of civil procedure for serving defaulted parties. It establishes that merely technical or administrative amendments that do not substantively alter the allegations or potential liability of a defaulted party do not trigger the requirement for re-service via formal process. This promotes judicial finality and prevents defaulted defendants from exploiting non-prejudicial amendments to vacate long-standing judgments. The ruling reinforces the principle that a party's default is an admission to the specific claims pending at that time, and only a subsequent, substantive change to those claims necessitates new formal notice to satisfy due process.
