ADAM E. MINCHUK, JR. AND MARY MINCHUK, APPELLANTS,
v.
MANUEL REYES, MERLE REYES AND MAYDA RODRIGUEZ, 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 Third District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. The court held that when a defendant files a sworn statement contesting jurisdictional allegations and the plaintiff files a counter-affidavit in direct conflict, the trial court must hold a limited evidentiary hearing rather than deciding the motion on the pleadings alone.
The trial court erred by failing to hold a limited evidentiary hearing on the jurisdiction issue. When a defendant files sworn statements contesting jurisdictional allegations and a plaintiff files counter-affidavits in direct conflict with those statements, the trial court must hold a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual conflicts regarding personal jurisdiction.
[1] A trial court must hold a limited evidentiary hearing on the issue of personal jurisdiction when sworn statements contesting jurisdiction are in direct conflict with coun…
[2] Allegations in a verified complaint may be sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under a long-arm statute and satisfy due process requirements.
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“A defendant wishing to contest the allegations of the complaint concerning jurisdiction or to raise a contention of insufficient minimum contacts must file an affidavit in support of his or her position. The burden is then placed upon the plaintiff to show by counter-affidavit the basis upon which jurisdiction is obtained. If relevant facts set forth in the respective affidavits are in direct conflict, then the trial judge should hold a limited evidentiary hearing on the issue of jurisdiction.”
Establishes the procedural requirement that conflicting affidavits on jurisdictional facts mandate an evidentiary hearing.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs sued the defendants in Miami-Dade County, alleging tortious and malicious acts. The defendants, who claimed to reside in Illinois and h…
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 Tortious Act cases and more on FLexlaw
ROTHENBERG, Judge.
The defendants, Adam E. Minchuk, Jr. and Mary Minchuk (collectively “the defendants”), appeal from a non-final order denying their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
Manuel Reyes, Merle Reyes, and Mayda Rodriguez (collectively “the plaintiffs”) filed suit against the defendants, asserting that they committed a tortious and malicious act in Miami-Dade County. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. In support of their motion, the defendants filed sworn statements, asserting that they reside in Illinois; that they have not engaged in any conduct in Florida that would subject them to personal jurisdiction in Florida; that they did not engage in the improper acts alleged in the complaint in Florida; and that they had no involvement in the actions alleged in the complaint. In response, the plaintiffs filed a counter-affidavit, which was in direct conflict with the defendants’ sworn statements.
After conducting a non-evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the allega tions in the complaint were sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over the defendants. The defendants’ non-final appeal followed.
We review the trial court’s order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction de novo. See Bohlander v. Robert Dean & Assocs. Yacht Brokerage, Inc., 920 So. 2d 1226, 1228 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). First, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the jurisdictional allegations in the verified complaint were sufficient to bring the action within Florida’s long-arm statute, section 48.193, Florida Statutes (2006), and that the complaint alleges sufficient minimum contacts between the defendants and Florida to satisfy due process requirements. See Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499, 502 (Fla.1989).
However, we find that the trial court erred by failing to hold a limited evidentiary hearing on the issue of jurisdiction. In the instant case, the defendants filed sworn statements to contest the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and to raise a contention of insufficient minimum contacts. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a counter-affidavit to support their basis for personal jurisdiction over the defendants. A review of the relevant facts averred in the defendants’ sworn statements and the plaintiffs’ counter-affidavit indicates that they are in direct conflict. Thus, the trial court was required to hold a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve the conflicts pertaining to jurisdiction. See Doe v. Thompson, 620 So. 2d 1004, 1005 (Fla.1993) (“[A] defendant wishing to contest the allegations of the complaint concerning jurisdiction or to raise a contention of insufficient minimum contacts must file an affidavit in support of his or her position. The burden is then placed upon the plaintiff to show by counter-affidavit the basis upon which jurisdiction is obtained. If relevant facts set forth in the respective affidavits are in direct conflict, then the trial judge should hold a limited evidentiary hearing on the issue of jurisdiction.”).
Reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Redwood Recovery Servs., LLC v. Addle Hill, Inc., 140 So. 3d 1037 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…he opposing affidavits2 conflict with one another, the trial court is required to hold an evi-dentiary hearing to resolve the jurisdictional issue, id. at 503, and the appellate court must reverse to allow the trial court to do so. Minchuk v. Reyes, 967 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). See also, John Posey Corp. v. R.J.T. Eng’g, Inc., 617 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). The record on appeal does not establish the basis for the trial court’s dismissal of Redwood’s impleader complaint or its basis for denying re…
-
Cohn v. Woolin, 971 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…1226, 1228 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). The Long-Arm Statute Under the two-part jurisdictional analysis detailed by the Florida Supreme Court in Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla.1989), and this Court more recently in Minchuk v. Reyes, 967 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007), the trial court examines the amended complaint for sufficient specific factual allegations to satisfy: (1) one or more of the predicate acts enumerated in section 48.193 of the Florida Statutes; and (2) the “minimum contacts” wit…
Authorities Cited
- Venetian Salami Co. v. J.S. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989)
- DOE v. Jere William Thompson, 620 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 1993)
- Bohlander v. Robert Dean & Assocs. Yacht Brokerage, Inc., 920 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)