RICHARD JASPER AND WDR FINANCIAL RESOURCES OF NEW YORK, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
JOSH ZARA, M.D., APPELLEE
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.
A Florida physician sued a New York financial planner for losses from investment advice, invoking Florida's long-arm statute. The court reversed the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding insufficient contacts with Florida to establish personal jurisdiction.
The court held that Jasper was not subject to Florida's jurisdiction because he did not meet any of the statutory requirements: he did not operate or conduct business in Florida, did not breach a contract in Florida, and did not engage in substantial activity within the state. The trial court erred in finding jurisdiction.
[1] A plaintiff must carry the initial burden to show compliance with the Long-Arm Statute in the initial complaint.
[2] A defendant's sworn factual allegations demonstrating a lack of long-arm jurisdiction must be sufficiently rebutted by the plaintiff with other supporting facts.
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“Jasper in New York communicated with Zara and his accountant by telephone and letter recommending various investment opportunities.”
Establishes the limited nature of the defendant's contacts with Florida—only phone and mail communications after being solicited by the plaintiff.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJasper, a New York resident and financial planner, was solicited by phone by Zara, a Florida physician, after being recommended by a friend of Zara's …
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 Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(G) cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
Richard Jasper and WDR Financial Resources of New York, Inc., defendants in the trial court, appeal the denial of their motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and to quash service of process. The appellee/plaintiff (Zara), a Florida physician, had invoked jurisdiction over these New York financial planners (Jasper) under subsections 48.193(l)(a), (l)(g), and (2), Florida Statutes (1989). Jasper contends that he had done no act, anticipated by the statute, to qualify him to be sued in Florida. We agree and reverse.
The undisputed facts show that Zara solicited Jasper in New York by phone. Zara, in Florida, phoned Jasper in New York for financial advice and consultation because Jasper had been recommended to Zara by a friend of Zara's mother. After this initial solicitation by Zara, Jasper in New York communicated with Zara and his accountant by telephone and letter recommending various investment opportunities. Jasper recommended that Zara invest in two specific real estate limited partnerships; Zara did so based on this advice by Jasper. Unfortunately these two investments did not realize the financial advantages to Zara that Zara and Jasper had hoped for. In his motion to dismiss and accompanying affidavits, Jasper claimed that he was a resident of New York, that he and his company had never been licensed to do business in Florida, had never maintained an office, agent, address or telephone listing in Florida, had never solicited business or advertised in Florida, had never had any assets located in Florida — in short, that he and his company had not had any connection with Florida other than the relationship with Zara of some 18 months duration during which they communicated by phone and letter only after being solicited by Zara from Florida. Nothing contained in Zara’s affidavit and attached exhibits, consisting of three written communications from Jasper to Zara, materially disputed these factual allegations.
On this record we find that Zara has not carried his initial burden to show in the initial complaint compliance with the Long-Arm Statute. Further, after Jasper’s motion and affidavits had sufficiently shown a lack of long-arm jurisdiction, Zara’s responses failed to put forth any other facts which would support jurisdiction under either subsection (l)(a), (l)(g), or (2) of section 48.193. Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla.1989). Zara has not disputed Jasper’s sworn factual proffers that under subsection 48.193(l)(a) he did not operate, conduct, engage in or carry on a business or business venture in Florida or have an office or agency here; that under subsection 48.193(l)(g) he did not breach a contract in Florida by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed here; and, that under subsection 48.193(2) he did not engage in substantial, but only isolated, activity within this state. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred when it found that Jasper was subject to the jurisdiction of the court. See Osborn v. University Society, Inc., 378 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), approved, Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla.1989).
We reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss the case against Jasper and his company. Our disposition is without prejudice to Zara’s seeking to amend his complaint to allege any other facts which might support jurisdiction over the appellants.
Reversed for entry of an order in accordance with this opinion.
THREADGILL and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stonepeak P'rs, LP v. Tall Tower Cap., LLC, 231 So. 3d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…ic communications from out-of-state offices into Florida do not establish conducting business in Florida. See Horizon Aggressive Growth, 421 F. 3d at 1167; Bernardele v. Bonorino, 608 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2009); see also Jasper v. Zara, 595 So. 2d 1075, 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (involving communications by mail and telephone). But we note that in Canale, 20 So. 3d at 468-69, this court distinguished the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Wendt that electronic communications into Florida could con…
-
Hobbs v. DON Mealey Chevrolet, Inc., 642 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…8 (Fla.1992); Pluess-Staufer Industries v. Rollason Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc., 635 So. 2d 1070, 1072 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Thompson v. Doe, 596 So. 2d 1178, 1180 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), approved, 620 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 1993); Jasper v. Zara, 595 So. 2d 1075, 1075-76 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Milberg Factors, Inc. v. Greenbaum, 585 So. 2d 1089, 1091-92 (Fla. [*1153] 3d DCA 1991); MacKenzie Insurance Agencies v. ATF Lines, 550 So. 2d 174,. 175-76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Newton v. Bryan, 433 So. 2d 577, 578-79 (Fl…1 / 2
-
Grogan v. Nell Archer, 669 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…dividually, was Grogan’s unrebut-ted affidavit establishing that jurisdiction over him individually was improper. Accordingly, the trial court erred in finding Grogan subject to Florida’s jurisdiction. Venetian Salami supra; see also Jasper v. Zara, 595 So. 2d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (where plaintiff failed to dispute defendant’s sworn factual proffers that he did not operate, conduct, engage in or carry on a business or business venture in Florida or have an office or agency there, and that he did not b…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Venetian Salami Co. v. J.S. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989)
- Osborn v. The Univ. Soc'y, Inc., 378 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)