Motion to Dismiss on Jurisdiction Requires an Evidentiary Hearing

In a matter arising out of Manatee County, Sarasota Green Group LLC (SGG) alleged that Greenspire, an Iowa corporation, and Mr. Knauss, an Iowa resident committed various tortious acts in Florida subjecting each to Florida jurisdiction.  The Defendants moved to dismiss with supporting affidavits, and Plaintiff field an affidavit in rebuttal.

The trial court held a non-evidentiary hearing where it denied the motion to dismiss despite fin finding conflict between the affidavits.

The Second DCA reversed the order denying the motion to dismiss and remanded.  The Second DCA recognize long standing precedent that required a two-prong test to determine whether personal jurisdiction extends to a non-resident defendant:

1. whether the complaint alleged sufficient facts for application of the Florida long-arm statute § 48.193, and
2. if so, whether there are sufficient ‘minimum contacts’ alleged to meet due process requirements. Dickinson Wright, PLLC v. Third Reef Holdings, LLC, 244 So. 3d 303, 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), citing, Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499, 502 (Fla. 1989); accord Teva Pharm. Indus. v. Ruiz, 181 So. 3d 513, 516 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). “A defendant wishing to contest the allegations of the complaint concerning jurisdiction or to raise a contention of minimum contacts must file affidavits in support of his position.” Venetian Salami, 554 So. 2d at 502.

The complaint facially met the Venetian test, but the Defendants affidavit shifted the burden back to the Defendant to prove “that a basis for long-arm jurisdiction exists.”  This required the Court to apply evidence to support its finding, and thus,, the Trial Court erred.

The full opinion is attached: here:

The hyperlink is attached here:: https://www.2dca.org/content/download/634519/opinion/193399_DC13_04292020_082646_i.pdf