WAYNE SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
CUBAN AMERICAN NATIONAL FOUNDATION, 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.
Wayne Smith, a non-resident defendant sued for defamation in Florida, appealed a trial court's denial of his motion to quash service of process and dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Smith's alleged defamatory statements made in a televised interview were foreseeable to reach Florida, establishing sufficient minimum contacts and proper jurisdiction.
The court held that Florida courts had personal jurisdiction over Smith under Florida Statutes Section 48.193(1)(b) because he prima facie committed a tort in Florida—the defamatory statements were made under circumstances where it was entirely foreseeable the broadcast would air in Florida. The court also held that an evidentiary hearing was not necessary because the return of service established proper service and Smith's affidavit contained only inadmissible hearsay.
[1] A non-resident defendant may be subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida under Section 48.193(1)(b), Florida Statutes, if they prima facie commit a tort within the sta…
[2] Committing a tort in Florida establishes sufficient minimum contacts with the state to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant served…
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 defendant prima facie committed a defamatory tort in this state by making certain allegedly defamatory statements in a televised interview conducted in Washington, D.C. for a PBS documentary film under circumstances in which it was entirely foreseeable that the subject film would be aired in Florida, which in fact it was.”
Establishes the basis for personal jurisdiction—the tortious conduct in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWayne Smith, a non-resident of Florida, made allegedly defamatory statements in a televised interview conducted in Washington, D.C. for a PBS document…
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 Return Of Service cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Wayne Smith from a non-final trial court order denying his pretrial motion to quash service of process and dismiss the complaint filed below in a defamation action, based on the ground of no personal jurisdiction over the defendant. We affirm.
First, we reject the defendant’s contention that the assertion of in personam jurisdiction over the defendant, a non-resident of Florida, violated the defendant’s due process rights. The defendant prima facie committed a defamatory tort in this state by making certain allegedly defamatory statements in a televised interview conducted in Washington, D.C. for a PBS documentary film under circumstances in which it was entirely foreseeable that the subject film would be aired in Florida, which in fact it was. Madara v. Hall, 916 F. 2d 1510, 1515 (11th Cir.1990); Madara v. Hall, 717 F.Supp. 812, 817 (S.D.Fla.1989).
Consequently, the defendant was amenable to suit in Florida under Section 48.193(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), as he prima facie committed a tort in Florida.
Moreover, it is settled that “by committing a tort in Florida a nonresident [defendant] establishes sufficient ‘minimum contacts’ with Florida to justify the acquisition of in personam jurisdiction over him by personally serving him outside the state.” Godfrey v. Neumann, 373 So. 2d 920, 922 (Fla.1979). Second, we reject the defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the defendant’s motion to quash service of process. The return of service filed in this cause clearly establishes that the defendant was properly served under Section 48.031(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1993); and, contrary to the defendant’s argument, the affidavit filed by the defendant below asserts no personal knowledge, only inadmissible hearsay, to controvert the return of service. This being so, there was no necessity to conduct an evidentiary hearing as the unre-futed return of service was sufficient to establish that the service of process was entirely proper in this case. Florida Nat’l Bank v. Halphen, 641 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Jefferson Bank & Trust v. Levy, 498 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Slomowitz v. Walker, 429 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Homeway Furniture Co. OF Mount Airy, Inc. v. Horne, 822 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…lver, 648 So. 2d 240; Allerton, 635 So. 2d 36.2 Other cases asserting personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who has never physically entered the state involve causes of action for defamation. See, e.g., Smith v. Cuban Am. Nat’l Found., 657 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). In Smith, the defendant made allegedly defamatory statements during a televised interview in Washington, D.C., which aired .in Florida as part of a national broadcast. Without regard to whether this court would treat such an out-…
-
Ferguson v. Ferguson, 921 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…An evidentiary hearing is not required on a motion where the allegations and supporting documents fail to allege a colorable entitlement to relief. See, e.g., Smith v. Smith, 903 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Smith v. Cuban American Nat. Found., 657 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The court’s decision to modify alimony is reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion. E.g., Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). We have reviewed the record and agree that the former husband’s February 18, 2005 pe…
-
Krilich v. Wolcott, 717 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…vertheless, tortious conduct such as that alleged here satisfies due process concerns. See Silver v. Levinson, 648 So. 2d 240, 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Paleias v. Wang, 632 So. 2d 1132, 1133 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Smith v. Cuban Am. Nat’l Found., 657 So. 2d 86, 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Appellants have sworn that Appellees physically entered Florida and committed an intentional tort within the state. Under such circumstances, if relied on, Appellees’ contacts with this jurisdiction are more than attenuated o…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Madara v. Hall, 916 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir. 1990)
- Slomowitz v. E.O. Walker and Geneva Walker, 429 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Charlotte Message Ctr., Inc. v. Hawkins, 373 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 1979)
- Godfrey v. Verica Neumann, 373 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 1979)
- Fla. Nat'l Bank v. Leyda Halphen, 641 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- NEW Port Largo, Inc. v. Mary Anne Munz and substitute trustee, 498 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Madera v. Hall, 717 F. Supp. 812 (S.D. Fla. 1989)