So.2d 749, 751 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1980). Only when a foreign corporation is shown to have a degree of control over the subsidiary, so that the activities of the subsidiary are in fact those of the parent within the state, can service on a subsidiary be effective. Id.; accord May v. Volkswagen of America, 125 F.R.D. 521 (N.D.Ga.1989); Turick by Turick v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., 121 F.R.D. 32 (S.D.N.Y.1988). Plaintiffs have neither presented nor proven any facts tending to show that the defendant, YMC JAPAN, exercised control over its subsidiary, YMC USA. Plaintiffs have merely relied upon the fact that YMC USA is a subsidiary of YMC JAPAN and thus have not met the burden of proving proper service of process. C.f Lamb v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 104 F.R.D. 95 (S.D.Fla.1985) (<HOLDING>). IV. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs’ first two methods
holding that the plaintiff had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish constructive notice because the plaintiff did not present any evidence to establish that the oil was on the floor for any length of time holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction holding that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to establish an agency relationship for service to be effective holding defendant a foreign manufacturer was not subject to the personal jurisdiction of a wyoming court because the plaintiff failed to introduce sufficient evidence to establish an agency relationship between the defendant and its us distributor holding that delivery of subpoena via federal express was sufficient because effective service under rule 45 is not limited to personal service