SUROOR BIN MOHAMMED AL NAHYAN, ETC., PETITIONER,
v.
FIRST INVESTMENT CORPORATION, ETC., RESPONDENT
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.
In this certiorari petition, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed whether discovery on jurisdictional issues was properly ordered by the trial court. The court denied the petition, holding that discovery is appropriate to resolve factual disputes regarding whether the defendant was conducting business in Florida, which goes to both personal jurisdiction and proper service of process.
The court held that discovery is appropriate on limited jurisdictional issues where the question of jurisdiction and service of process share a common factual basis. The defendant's affidavit created a factual dispute requiring discovery to test its accuracy, and while some discovery requests may be overbroad, the requests are not so oppressive as to warrant extraordinary relief.
[1] A petition for certiorari may be denied when the issue of jurisdiction and service of process share a common factual issue that requires further discovery.
[2] Discovery is permissible to test the accuracy of an affidavit filed regarding the jurisdictional basis for service of process.
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 rationale of Gleneagle Ship Management Co. v. Leondakos, 602 So. 2d 1282 (Fla.1992), logically would apply not only to an issue of in personam jurisdiction, but also to service of process where the issue is a factual one going to the underlying jurisdictional basis for use of a particular form of service of process”
Establishes the legal principle that discovery is appropriate for factual jurisdictional disputes affecting both personal jurisdiction and service of process
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSuroor Bin Mohammed Al Nahyan was served with process through the Secretary of State under Florida's long-arm statute. The complaint contained sparse …
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 Privileged Information cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, Judge.
This matter is before the court on a petition for certiorari directed to certain discovery on jurisdictional issues ordered by the court. We have determined to deny the petition for certiorari. It is doubtful whether service of process on the defendant Suroor Bin Mohammed A1 Nahyan through the Secretary of State was proper in light of the sparseness of the allegations contained in the complaint that the defendant was conducting business in Florida within the terms of section 48.181(1), Florida Statutes; nevertheless, the rationale of Gleneagle Ship Management Co. v. Leondakos, 602 So. 2d 1282 (Fla.1992), logically would apply not only to an issue of in personam jurisdiction, but also to service of process where the issue is a factual one going to the underlying jurisdictional basis for use of a particular form of service of process. Here, the question of jurisdiction and service of process share a common factual issue, which is whether Suroor Bin Mohammed A1 Nahyan operated, engaged in or carried on a business or business venture in this state. The defendant has filed an affidavit directed to the issue and the plaintiff is entitled to discovery to test its accuracy. We agree with the lower court that it is appropriate to permit discovery on such limited issues. Suroor’s complaint that the scope of certain of the discovery required by the lower court is too broad has merit and warrants reconsideration by the lower court. Nevertheless, nothing privileged is demanded and we do not find the requests so overbroad or oppressive that this court should interfere through issuance of an extraordinary writ.
DENIED.
THOMPSON, J., concurs.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gleneagle Ship Mgmt. Co. v. Leondakos, 602 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 1992)
- Suroor Bin Mohammed Al Nahyan v. First Inv. Corp., 700 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)