CHRISTOPHER DAY
v.
LAWYERS' REPORTING, INC.
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.
The appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court found the plaintiff met the burden to establish long-arm jurisdiction and sufficient minimum contacts for due process. However, the court lacked appellate jurisdiction over other arguments raised by the defendant regarding subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action.
The lower court correctly denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review the defendant's other arguments because they were not ruled upon by the lower court and are not proper subjects for interlocutory appeal.
[1] A plaintiff may establish personal jurisdiction over a defendant under Florida's long-arm statute for breach of contract if the defendant breached a contract in Florida b…
[2] To satisfy due process, a defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 plaintiff carried its burden to prove a basis for the county court exercising long-arm jurisdiction over the defendant, in his personal capacity, on the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim under section 48.193(1)(a)7., Florida Statutes (2022) (a person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who “[b]reach[es] a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in this state,” thereby submits himself to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for any cause of action arising therefrom).”
Establishes the basis for personal jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant appealed an order denying his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff's claim was for breach of contract. The…
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 Interlocutory Review cases and more on FLexlaw
GERBER, J.
The defendant appeals from the county court’s order denying his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
We affirm the county court’s order. The plaintiff carried its burden to prove a basis for the county court exercising long-arm jurisdiction over the defendant, in his personal capacity, on the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim under section 48.193(1)(a)7., Florida Statutes (2022) (a person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who “[b]reach[es] a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in this state,” thereby submits himself to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for any cause of action arising therefrom). The plaintiff also carried its burden to prove the defendant, in his personal capacity, had sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to satisfy due process.
The defendant’s initial brief raises two other arguments over which we lack appellate jurisdiction. First, the defendant argues the county court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s action based on the monetary amount which the plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges the defendant owes. Second, the defendant argues the plaintiff’s fraud in the inducement count fails to state a cause of action.
We lack appellate jurisdiction over these arguments for two reasons. First, the county court’s order from which the defendant has appealed was limited to denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on only personal jurisdiction, and did not address the defendant’s arguments for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action. Second, even if the county court’s order had addressed the defendant’s arguments for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action, those arguments cannot serve as the basis for our interlocutory review. See generally Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3) (identifying the limited nonfinal orders which may be appealed to the district courts of appeal).
We recognize the plaintiff’s answer brief concedes that, “[f]or purposes of this appeal only, [the plaintiff] … has not, at this time, alleged sufficient jurisdictional facts in its Amended Complaint to state a cause of action for the tort of fraud in the inducement against [the defendant].” Based on that concession, the defendant’s reply brief argues “[the plaintiff’s] current acknowledgement of the insufficiency of its fraud claim invites this Court of Appeal to dismiss [the fraud in the inducement count].” While we understand the defendant’s request, we cannot grant that request based on our lack of appellate jurisdiction over that argument. That request must be addressed to the county court.
Affirmed.
KLINGENSMITH, C.J., and GROSS, J., concur.