PREMIER HOTEL CORPORATION D/B/A PREMIER RESORTS & HOTELS, A CAYMAN ISLAND CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
M GROUP RESORTS, S.A., A PANAMANIAN CORPORATION AND JALOUSIE PLANTATION LOWER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD. D/B/A JALOUSIE PLANTATION RESORTS, A ST. LUCIAN CORPORATION, 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 held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, as sufficient basis for jurisdiction was shown.
Premier Hotel Corporation, doing business as Premier Resorts and Hotels, appealed an order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The…
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
PER CURIAM.
Premier Hotel Corporation, doing business as Premier Resorts and Hotels, appeals an order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
The letterhead of appellant’s corporate president, and business cards of some of its officers, indicate that it has a Miami office as well as offices elsewhere. We therefore view with skepticism appellant’s effort to deny that it has a Miami presence.
The present lawsuit claims breach of contract, and fraudulent inducement to enter into the contract, between the parties. Taking the affidavit of the appellant’s chairman as true, we accept the contention that appellant’s Miami activities were somewhat limited. Nonetheless, the affidavit concedes at least some contact with relation to this commercial transaction at the Miami location, and concedes that appellant’s agent, Premier World Marketing, a Florida corporation, performed some services in Florida on this contract.
The long-arm statute provides personal jurisdiction of “[a]ny person ... who personally or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this subsection ... for any cause of action arising from the doing of any of the following acts: (a) ... having an office or agency in this state.” § 48.193(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989).
We conclude that the basis for jurisdiction was sufficiently shown, and that an evidentiary hearing was not required under Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla.1989).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Abdo v. Khalil Abdo, 263 So. 3d 141 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
-
Conti-Reederei Mgmt. GmbH v. Navigator Servs., Inc., 752 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla.1989); Premier Hotel Corp. v. M. Group Resorts, S.A., 753 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Citicorp Ins. Brokers (Marine), Ltd. v. Chaman, 635 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Ben M. Hogan Company, Inc. v. QDA Inv. Corp., 570 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Naviera Mayaca Express S. de R.L. v. Brauer & Assocs., Inc., 559…
Authorities Cited
- Venetian Salami Co. v. J.S. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989)