ROBERT T. HANSEN AND MICHAEL C. FERRIER, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROSS COOPER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND DAVID F. HUGHES, GEOFFREY B. HOUSE, MICHAEL WHEELER, CHARLES LAM, HAYDN SHAUGHNESSY, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS OFFICERS, DIRECTORS AND SHAREHOLDERS OF EXTRUDAWOOD U.K., LTD., AND SLEEKWOOD HOLDING, 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.
The court reversed dismissal of the action against Extrudawood U.K., Ltd. for lack of personal jurisdiction because conflicting affidavits required an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed facts about the defendant's contacts with Florida, but affirmed dismissal as to individual defendant Charles Lam.
When affidavits in a jurisdictional motion to dismiss contain conflicting essential facts, the trial court must conduct a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve those disputes rather than dismiss based on the pleadings alone.
[1] When a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is supported by affidavits containing conflicting essential facts, the trial court must conduct a limited evide…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Hansen and Ferrier sued Extrudawood U.K., Ltd. and individual defendants. Extrudawood claimed its only U.S. contact with appellants was cor…
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 Conflicting Affidavits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
As to appellee, Extrudawood, U.K., Ltd., we reverse the order dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the motion to dismiss. Because essential facts contained in the parties’ affidavits were in conflict, the court was required to conduct a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve the disputed facts. See, e.g., Washington Capital Corp. v. Milandco, Ltd., 695 So. 2d 838, 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Extrudawood’s affidavit alleged that its representatives “never met with the Plaintiffs in the United States” and that the only contact the company had had with appellants in the United States was “certain correspondence and telephone calls to [appellants].” Appellants asserted that Extrudawood had “continuous contacts within the State of Florida from January of 1995 through February of 1996” which included the “preparation and execution of a Memorandum of Understanding which was executed in the State of Florida” and the establishment of two North American corporations with offices in Palm Beach County for the purposes of licensing, distributing and manufacturing Extrudawood.
As to appellee, Charles Lam, we affirm the order of dismissal.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
STONE, C.J., WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zahav Refi, LLC v. White Hawk Asset Mgmt., Inc. (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)…the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing applying the burden-shifting framework of Cramer in order to determine first whether the moving party has established a prima facie case of need for a receivership. See, e.g., Hansen v. Cooper, 733 So. 2d 1144, 1144 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) ("Because essential facts . . . were in conflict, the court was required to conduct a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve the disputed facts."); Parrish & Yarnell, P.A. v. Spruce River Ventures, LLC, 180 So. 3d 1198,…
Authorities Cited
- Wash. Cap. Corp. & Jack Wolgin v. Milandco, Ltd., Inc., 695 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)