When the parties’ affidavits conflict on personal jurisdiction, a Florida trial court cannot resolve the fight on paper — it must hold a limited evidentiary hearing. That is the holding of Greenspire Global, Inc. v. Sarasota Green Group LLC, No. 2D19-3399 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 29, 2020), in which the Second District Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a motion to dismiss after the trial court acknowledged that the affidavits conflicted “to a large extent” and then ruled without taking any evidence.
Facts
Sarasota Green Group LLC (SGG) sued Greenspire Global, Inc., an Iowa corporation, and Steven M. Knauss, its president and an Iowa resident, in the Circuit Court for Manatee County. SGG’s second amended complaint alleged that Greenspire and Knauss committed various tortious acts in Florida. SGG premised jurisdiction on representations Knauss made during a business meeting with SGG in Manatee County to negotiate the terms of an exclusive license agreement between the two companies, and on its allegation that Greenspire had been conducting other business activities within Florida.
Greenspire and Knauss moved to dismiss the second amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. They filed two affidavits in support: one from Knauss individually and one from Knauss in his capacity as president of Greenspire. SGG responded with an affidavit from its managing member. A supplemental affidavit from Knauss, individually and as president of Greenspire, followed.
The trial court held a nonevidentiary hearing. At the conclusion of that hearing the court acknowledged that the affidavits conflicted “to a large extent.” It nonetheless declined to hold an evidentiary hearing and denied the motion to dismiss. No limited evidentiary hearing was ever held, and the defendants appealed the nonfinal order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.
Issues
The appeal presented a narrow but recurring question: may a trial court deny a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on competing affidavits alone, or do irreconcilable jurisdictional affidavits require a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual dispute? A ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is reviewed de novo.
Holding: A Limited Evidentiary Hearing Is Required
The Second District reversed and remanded. Where a defendant’s affidavits rebut the complaint’s jurisdictional allegations and the plaintiff answers with an affidavit of its own, the competing sworn evidence must be harmonized. If it cannot be, the trial court must hold a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve the jurisdictional issue before ruling on the motion. Denying the motion on an unreconciled paper record was error. In practical terms, a limited evidentiary hearing is the only mechanism available when sworn testimony points in two directions.
Rationale
Florida courts apply a two-prong test to decide whether personal jurisdiction reaches a nonresident defendant: (1) whether the complaint alleges sufficient facts for application of Florida’s long-arm statute, section 48.193, Florida Statutes; and (2) if so, whether sufficient minimum contacts are 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 Pharmaceutical Industries v. Ruiz, 181 So. 3d 513, 516 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).
Venetian Salami supplies the burden-shifting mechanics. A defendant wishing to contest the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, or to raise a contention of minimum contacts, “must file affidavits in support of his position.” The burden is then placed on the plaintiff “to prove by affidavit the basis upon which jurisdiction may be obtained.” Venetian Salami, 554 So. 2d at 502.
Applied here, SGG’s complaint comported with both prongs of the Venetian Salami standard. But Greenspire and Knauss submitted affidavits rebutting SGG’s jurisdictional allegations, which shifted the burden back to SGG to prove that a basis for long-arm jurisdiction exists. SGG met that burden by submitting an affidavit refuting the defendants’ averments — and in doing so created a conflict in the parties’ evidence.
That conflict is what triggered the hearing requirement. If the parties’ evidence cannot be harmonized by the trial court, the court must hold a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve the jurisdictional issue. The hearing exists to settle the factual disputes necessary to determine jurisdiction under section 48.193 as well as whether minimum contacts exist to satisfy due process concerns. Because the trial court expressly found a conflict and then ruled without taking evidence, reversal followed.
Practice Points for a Limited Evidentiary Hearing
- Plead jurisdictional facts, not the conclusion. The complaint must allege facts bringing the defendant within a specific subsection of section 48.193; reciting the statute is not enough.
- A motion alone does not shift the burden. The defense must file affidavits that actually contest the jurisdictional allegations. An unsworn motion leaves the complaint’s allegations unrebutted.
- Answer sworn proof with sworn proof. Once the defense affidavits land, the plaintiff must come forward with a competing affidavit or risk dismissal on the paper record.
- Ask for the hearing on the record. If the affidavits cannot be harmonized, request a limited evidentiary hearing and make sure both the request and the conflict are preserved in the transcript.
- The ruling is reviewable now. An order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is an appealable nonfinal order under rule 9.130 — there is no need to wait for final judgment.
Read the Opinion
The Second District’s opinion runs four pages and is worth the read for its concise statement of when a limited evidentiary hearing becomes mandatory. Greenspire Global, Inc. v. Sarasota Green Group LLC, No. 2D19-3399 (PDF) opens on the court’s site in a new tab. A copy is also attached below.
Florida Civil Litigation
Challenging or Defending Jurisdiction in a Florida Court?
Long-arm jurisdiction fights turn on affidavits, burden-shifting, and, when the sworn facts conflict, a limited evidentiary hearing. Cox Law, PLLC litigates jurisdictional motions in Florida trial and appellate courts. If you have been sued in Florida and believe the court lacks jurisdiction over you, or you need to keep an out-of-state defendant in the case, let’s talk.
Or call (813) 685-8600 · Webquestion@Coxlawplc.com
This post is for general information only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts.