GERALD R. MCMILLAN, APPELLANT,
v.
DR. RICHARD TROUTMAN, 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.
Gerald McMillan appealed an order denying his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. The court reversed and remanded, holding that conflicting affidavits regarding the defendant's residency required a limited evidentiary hearing to determine jurisdiction.
The court reversed and held that when factual allegations in jurisdictional affidavits are in direct conflict, the trial court must conduct a limited evidentiary hearing to determine the issue of jurisdiction, and the parties are entitled to discovery limited to facts relevant to jurisdiction.
[1] A plaintiff must allege sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring an action within the ambit of the applicable long-arm statute and demonstrate the defendant has sufficien…
[2] A defendant contesting personal jurisdiction must file a legally sufficient affidavit supporting their position.
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“If the factual allegations of the affidavits can be harmonized, the court can make its decision based upon the affidavits. If, however, the facts asserted in the affidavits are in direct conflict, the trial court must hold a limited evidentiary hearing to determine the issue of jurisdiction.”
Establishes the standard for when an evidentiary hearing on jurisdiction is required
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcMillan, a Texas resident, filed an affidavit stating he had no connection to or contacts in Florida and that his dealings with Dr. Troutman occurred…
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 Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAHOOD, J.
Appellant, Gerald McMillan, appeals an order of the trial court denying his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for forum non conveniens thereby determining that the court has personal jurisdiction over him. We reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to conduct a limited evidentiary hearing pursuant to Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla.1989).
In this case, appellant filed an affidavit stating that he is a resident of Texas with no connection to or contacts in Florida, that his dealings with appellee were in New York, and that appellee was a resident of New York. He points out that appellee filed an affidavit claiming Florida residency, and argues that such conflict between affidavits could not be reconciled without an evidentiary hearing.
In Venetian Salami, the Florida Supreme Court laid out the procedure by which a Florida plaintiff may seek to obtain personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. Initially, the complaint must plead a sufficient basis for service in the language of section 48.193, Florida Statutes (1997). If the defendant moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, without more, the motion raises only the legal sufficiency of the pleadings. If the defendant wishes to contest the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, he must file an affidavit in support of his position. The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to prove by affidavit the basis upon which jurisdiction may be obtained. If the factual allegations of the affidavits can be harmonized, the court can make its decision based upon the affidavits. If, however, the facts asserted in the affidavits are in direct conflict, the trial court must hold a limited evidentiary hearing to determine the issue of jurisdiction. Id. at 502-03. Here, appellee’s alleged Florida residence is the only basis for Florida jurisdiction. Appellant states that appellee is a New York resident, while appellee claims to be a Florida resident. These claims are in a posture of irreconcilable conflict, and we therefore reverse for a Venetian Salami hearing. We further hold that before such a hearing can take place, the parties are entitled to take discovery, limited to the facts relevant to the issue of jurisdiction. See Gleneagle Ship Management v. Leondakos, 602 So. 2d 1282 (Fla.1992).
Reversed and remanded.
GUNTHER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Madonna v. Gaynor, 95 So. 3d 990 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…facts and the factual disputes related to personal jurisdiction are complex, we recognize that it may be necessary for the parties to engage in discovery limited to the jurisdictional facts prior to the evidentiary hearing. See McMillan v. Troutman, 740 So. 2d 1227, 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Reversed and remanded. KHOUZAM and MORRIS, JJ., Concur. . We are aware that Mr. Madonna has been a party in past nursing home litigation in the trial court and that he has appeared as a petitioner in this court in one s…
-
Rizack v. Signature Bank, N.A., 267 So. 3d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Venetian Salami Co. v. J.S. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989)
- Gleneagle Ship Mgmt. Co. v. Leondakos, 602 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 1992)