- 4 -
Rule 60(c) and asserts that under Florida law, an
administratively dissolved corporation is not precluded
from bringing an action in its corporate name. He claims
authority to represent petitioner, pursuant to Rule 24(b),
as petitioner’s only corporate officer.
Respondent’s reply to the supplement to petitioner’s
notice of objection does not deny any of the facts alleged
by petitioner. Respondent’s reply also makes it plain that
it is not petitioner’s status as an administratively
dissolved Florida corporation that is the basis for
respondent’s position that the instant petition must be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Respondent concedes
that “petitioner is entitled to bring this action” on the
basis of Fla. Stat. Ann. secs. 607.1405 and 607.1421 (West
2001). Those provisions of the Florida Statutes, according
to respondent, “allow administratively dissolved
corporations to carry on or defend an action in their
corporate name.”
Respondent’s position is that petitioner, as
represented by Mr. Asbury, did not have the capacity to
file the instant petition because Mr. Asbury was not
authorized under Florida law to file the instant petition
on petitioner’s behalf. Respondent argues that, under Rule
60(c), the capacity of a representative to litigate in this
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011