ALAN NATHAN, SUZAN BARROS, STUART NATHAN, ROBERT NATHAN, EDNA NATHAN, ROXANNE LANE, DANIEL BLANCO, GREGORY RICCI AND GORDON CONE, APPELLANTS,
v.
MAURICE BATES, A/K/A ALVINIE MAURICE BATES, III, D/B/A BATES ENTERPRISES AND GOLD BY GOD, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Alan Nathan appealed a trial court's dismissal of his complaint against the Floyds for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that the Floyds' affidavits conclusively demonstrated insufficient minimum contacts with Florida to satisfy constitutional due process requirements.
The court affirmed the dismissal because the Floyds' affidavits conclusively demonstrated they did not satisfy the constitutional due process requirements for minimum contacts with Florida necessary to establish personal jurisdiction.
[1] A court lacks jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when the defendant's affidavits conclusively demonstrate a lack of minimum contacts with the forum state, satisfyi…
[2] A plaintiff's affidavit does not create a genuine issue of material fact requiring an evidentiary hearing on jurisdiction when the alleged tortious conduct occurred outsi…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The Floyds' affidavits conclusively demonstrate that they did not satisfy the Constitutional due process requirements for sufficient minimum contacts with this State.”
Establishes the court's primary holding that the affidavits proved insufficient minimum contacts as a matter of law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNathan filed a complaint against Steve and Cheryl Floyd regarding a real estate sale involving property located in Washington State. The Floyds are Wa…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Due Process Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Alan Nathan appeals the trial court’s order dismissing with prejudice his complaint filed against appellees, Steve and Cheryl Floyd. We affirm because neither Nathan’s complaint nor the Floyds’ affidavits provided a basis for the trial court’s jurisdiction.
The Floyds’ affidavits conclusively demonstrate that they did not satisfy the Constitutional due process requirements for sufficient minimum contacts with this State. See Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499, 502 (Fla.1989) (explaining that when a case involves nonresidents, the court must not only assure that the requirements of section 48.193, Florida Statutes, are satisfied, but also that the “minimum contacts” test of International Shoe has been fulfilled); see also Green v. USF & G Corp., 772 F.Supp. 1258 (S.D.Fla.1991). The subject real estate sale involves real property that is located in the state of Washington. The Floyds are residents of the state of Washington, and they have never visited Florida. Furthermore, Nathan’s affidavit did not create an issue of fact that necessitated an evidentiary hearing, given that the alleged tortious conduct occurred in the state of Washington. Because the affidavits did not satisfy the due process requirements for minimum contacts, we need not address the statutory requirements for long-arm jurisdiction.
Consequently, there is no basis for jurisdiction over the Floyds in Florida. The trial court therefore correctly dismissed Nathan’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mc Liberty Express v. All Points Servs., 252 So. 3d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Venetian Salami Co. v. J.S. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989)
- Green v. USF & G Corp., 772 F. Supp. 1258 (S.D. Fla. 1991)