BRADLEY S. JACOBS, APPELLANT,
v.
PATRICIA NADAL, 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.
Bradley Jacobs appealed an order denying his motion to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden of refuting the defendant's jurisdictional affidavit with sworn proof, requiring dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
The court reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint for lack of in personam jurisdiction. Once the defendant submitted an affidavit contesting the essential jurisdictional facts, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to refute that proof with sworn testimony or affidavit, which the plaintiff failed to do.
[1] A two-part inquiry is required to assess whether the exercise of long-arm jurisdiction is appropriate: first, whether the complaint alleges sufficient jurisdictional fact…
[2] Allegations of intentional conduct within a state causing injury to a resident are sufficient to bring an action within the long-arm statute.
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“First, it must be determined that the complaint alleges sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring the action within the ambit of the statute; and if it does, the next inquiry is whether sufficient 'minimum contacts' are demonstrated to satisfy due process requirements.”
Establishes the two-part test for assessing long-arm jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJacobs allegedly engaged in intentional conduct that took place in Florida and caused injury to a Florida resident. Jacobs submitted an affidavit cont…
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 Jurisdictional Facts cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Bradley Jacobs appeals an order denying his motion to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction.
It is well-settled that a two-part inquiry is required to assess whether the exercise of long-arm jurisdiction is appropriate. “First, it must be determined that the complaint alleges sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring the action within the ambit of the statute; and if it does, the next inquiry is whether sufficient ‘minimum contacts’ are demonstrated to satisfy due process requirements.” Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499, 502 (Fla.1989); see also Woods v. Nova Companies Belize, Ltd., 739 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), rev. denied, 766 So. 2d 222 (2000).
The allegations in the complaint that Jacobs engaged in intentional conduct that took place in the State of Florida and caused injury to a Florida resident are sufficient to bring the action within the statute. See § 48.193(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2000). Therefore, we turn to the second aspect of the jurisdictional inquiry. That inquiry shifts the burden to the defendant, Jacobs, to contest jurisdiction by a legally sufficient affidavit or other similar sworn proof contesting the essential jurisdictional facts. Jacobs met his burden having submitted an affidavit to support his position that none of the transactions at issue took place in Florida. Hence, the burden then returned to the plaintiff, Patricia Nadal, to refute the proof in Jacobs’ affidavit, either by affidavit or other sworn testimony. Venetian Salami 554 So. 2d at 502; QSR, Inc. v. Concord Food Festival Inc., 766 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Nadal did not meet her burden because she did not file any sworn proof in support of her jurisdictional allegations. Washington Capital Corp. v. Milandco, Ltd., Inc., 695 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand this case to the trial court with directions to dismiss the complaint for lack of in personam jurisdiction. See Norwest Bank Minneapolis, N.A. v. American Centennial Ins. Co., 493 So. 2d 101, 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). See also Kajima Corp. v. Fitzpatrick, 526 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
DELL, KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mulligan v. Frank Found. Child Assistance, 584 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (M.D. Fla. 2008)…. Horowitz, 822 So.2d 1252, 1260 (Fla.2002). When the tortious act and the injury to the plaintiff occur in Florida, a defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of the Florida courts pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(b). See, e.g., Jacobs v. Nadal, 777 So.2d 1137 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.2001) (The court recognized that a defendants intentional conduct that took place and caused injury to the plaintiff in the state of Florida was sufficient to establish jurisdiction over the defendant pursuant to Section 48.193…
Authorities Cited
- Venetian Salami Co. v. J.S. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989)
- Woods v. Nova Cos. Belize Ltd., 739 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Wash. Cap. Corp. & Jack Wolgin v. Milandco, Ltd., Inc., 695 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- QSR, Inc. v. Concord Food Festival Inc., 766 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Norwest Bank Minneapolis, N.A. v. Am. Centennial Ins. Co., 493 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Meyers v. Meyers, 526 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Kajima Corp. v. Fitzpatrick, 526 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)