Archives

Case of the Day: Bevilacqua v. US Bank

The case of the day is Bevilacqua v. US Bank, NA (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016). US Bank brought a foreclosure action against a mortgagor, Renato Bevilacqua. The return of service indicated that Bevilacqua was personally served in Miami, Florida. US Bank obtained a default judgment, but Bevilacqua then moved to set aside the judgment, stating that he lived in Italy, had never been served with process, and had had no notice of the action. The court set aside the judgment. The bank then sought to serve process on Bevilacqua via the central authority under the Hague Service Convention.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Bevilacqua v. US Bank

Case of the Day: GMI v. Asociación del Fútbol Argentino

The case of the day is GMI, LLC v. Asociación del Fútbol Argentino (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016). GMI had an agreement with the AFA, the sport’s governing body in Argentina, for the exclusive right to market and sell AFA’s football marketing rights for a twenty-year term. The agreement provided that AFA would not make any payments to GMI, but rather, that AFA would reach an agreement with the prospective buyer for GMI’s compensation. GMI arranged for the Republic of Argentina to purchase the rights. But according to GMI, Argentina and AFA then muscled GMI out of the deal, completing the purchase and sale but not paying GMI anything. GMI sued AFA in the Florida court for breach of contract. AFA moved to dismiss on the grounds that the Republic of Argentina was an indispensable party that could not be joined. The court granted the motion, and GMI appealed.
Continue reading Case of the Day: GMI v. Asociación del Fútbol Argentino

Case of the Day: Portalp International v. Zuloaga

The case of the day is Portalp International SAS v. Zuloaga (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015). Daniel Zuloaga was the president of Portalp USA. LLC. When the company terminated his employment, he sued Portalp USA and its parent, Portalp International, SAS, a French firm, for breach of contract. He served process on Portalp, in France, by Fedex. Portalp moved to dismiss, arguing that the Hague Service Convention did not permit service by mail. In other words, Portalp was asking the court to adopt the minority American view that because Article 10(a) of the Convention used the word “send” instead of “served,” it did not permit service of process by mail.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Portalp International v. Zuloaga