Bad news for a South Florida firm that failed to dismiss a lawsuit served on an employee at its front desk.

The Third District Court of Appeal rejected Morales Law Group's motion to quash service and dismiss the lawsuit, finding the firm failed to present convincing evidence that service was defective.

It upheld a lower court decision against the firm in an underlying employment discrimination case.

Morales Law did not respond to a request for comment by press time.

No response

The attorney for the former employee suing the firm claims Morales Law Group largely failed to respond to court filings.

At trial, it was the first time Miami attorney Elizabeth Hitt had argued before an empty chair, when Morales Law Group failed to appear at a hearing. She said it's an obstacle, rather than an advantage, when appearing before a jury.

"There was no party and no opposing attorney present in court," Hitt said. "A jury tends to feel sorry for the empty chair, the person who is not there. So the jury would definitely hold your feet to the fire to prove your case."

Yet Hitt, a partner at Ader & Hitt in Miami, prevailed.

Her client Tres Rodman had sued Morales Law for alleged employment discrimination. Rodman prevailed. The court awarded him $50,000 in damages and granted attorney fees.

The dispute dated back to June 2013 when Rodman was fired from his job as a litigation assistant at the Morales Law Group. He alleged discrimination based on race, national origin and sex before the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission.

Two years later, a letter of determination from the government agency upheld his claim. Court documents suggest conciliation efforts failed due to Morales Law failing to respond. Rodman sent a notice of the right to sue and then filed a complaint in Miami-Dade Circuit Court. He prevailed in the lower court, but Morales Law raised a challenge before the Third District Court of Appeal.

Read the Third DCA opinion:

'She had moved to Puerto Rico'

The Third DCA's opinion states that Morales Law was served soon afterward with a summons and a complaint in Rodman's action. The process server gave the documents to an employee of Morales Law sitting at the front desk.

Since Morales Law never responded to Rodman's complaint, the trial court entered an order of default against it. Then, following a jury trial, Rodman was awarded $50,000 in damages. The final judgment tacked on statutory interest.

Meanwhile, Hitt, Rodman's attorney, said she was was sending copies and notices of all pleadings to Morales Law. Hitt said since she and the court were using the Florida Bar address for Marisol Morales, counsel to Morales Law, and since none of the mail was being returned as undelivered, both assumed the defendant was receiving the documents.

"Morales told me later she had moved to Puerto Rico, but she did not change her contact information with the Florida Bar for quite some time," Hitt said. "So even the court was sending her notices there. Morales later had that mail forwarded to Puerto Rico, so I am not quite sure why she did not show up until well after the final judgment."

About nine months later, Morales Law filed a motion to quash service and dismiss. The motion said service was not properly effected on its employee. Morales Law did not present any evidence at the hearing on the motion to quash before the trial court. Marisol Morales relied solely on oral argument, according to the Third DCA opinion.

"The judge basically just heard her talk, and rightfully said, 'Nope. Sorry,' and denied her motion," Hitt said. "Then she took an appeal."

On appeal, the Third DCA noted that Morales Law did not provide any evidence at the hearing, either by "affidavit, sworn testimony, documents, or other competent evidence, to counter the valid service on its employee." The appellate court then ruled against Morales Law.

As for Hitt, her client is pleased with the court decision after an ordeal that took several years to come to fruition.

"Rodman was happy for the verdict on damages," Hitt said. "He found it very fair."