Hansen v. Cooper

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hansen v. Cooper

733 So. 2d 1144, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 7548, 1999 WL 371257

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 9, 1999

DocketNo. 97-4378

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 733 So. 2d 1144 (Hansen v. Cooper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hansen v. Cooper, 733 So. 2d 1144, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 7548, 1999 WL 371257 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

As to appellee, Extrudawood, U.K., Ltd., we reverse the order dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the motion to dismiss. Because essential facts contained in the parties’ affidavits were in conflict, the court was required to conduct a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve the disputed facts. See, e.g., Washington Capital Corp. v. Milandco, Ltd., 695 So.2d 838, 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Extrudawood’s affidavit alleged that its representatives “never met with the Plaintiffs in the United States” and that the only contact the company had had with appellants in the United States was “certain correspondence and telephone calls to [appellants].” Appellants asserted that Extrudawood had “continuous contacts within the State of Florida from January of 1995 through February of 1996” which included the “preparation and execution of a Memorandum of Understanding which was executed in the State of Florida” and the establishment of two North American corporations with offices in Palm Beach County for the purposes of licensing, distributing and manufacturing Extrudawood.

As to appellee, Charles Lam, we affirm the order of dismissal.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.

STONE, C.J., WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

As to appellee, Extrudawood, U.K., Ltd., we reverse the order dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the motion to dismiss. Because essential facts contained in the parties’ affidavits were in conflict, the court was required to conduct a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve the disputed facts. See, e.g., Washington Capital Corp. v. Milandco, Ltd., 695 So.2d 838, 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Extrudawood’s affidavit alleged that its representatives “never met with the Plaintiffs in the United States” and that the only contact the company had had with appellants in the United States was “certain correspondence and telephone calls to [appellants].” Appellants asserted that Extrudawood had “continuous contacts within the State of Florida from January of 1995 through February of 1996” which included the “preparation and execution of a Memorandum of Understanding which was executed in the State of Florida” and the establishment of two North American corporations with offices in Palm Beach County for the purposes of licensing, distributing and manufacturing Extrudawood.

As to appellee, Charles Lam, we affirm the order of dismissal.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.

STONE, C.J., WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

733 So. 2d 1144, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 7548, 1999 WL 371257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hansen-v-cooper-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack