Parthnais v. Venetian Salami Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Parthnais v. Venetian Salami Co.

538 So. 2d 532, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 488, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 791, 1989 WL 12446

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 15, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1414

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 538 So. 2d 532 (Parthnais v. Venetian Salami Co.) 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

Parthnais v. Venetian Salami Co., 538 So. 2d 532, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 488, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 791, 1989 WL 12446 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON, Judge.

Parthnais (plaintiff) appeals an order dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdic[533]*533tion over Venetian Salami Company (defendant). He contends the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint because it sufficiently alleged the facts necessary to comply with § 48.193, Fla.Stat. so as to obtain personal jurisdiction. We agree and reverse.

The defendant contends that although the statutory requirements for jurisdiction may have been met, constitutional due process requires that a defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts in the state. Defendant argues that once he controverts personal jurisdiction by asserting the lack of minimum contacts, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show by affidavit that the defendant did have sufficient minimum contacts.

There is conflict in the Florida appellate decisions as to whether it is necessary to show the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy the due process rights of the defendant in addition to alleging the statutory requirements to obtain personal jurisdiction. The decisions of two District Courts of Appeal support the view urged by the defendant and hold that meeting the statutory requirements is only the first step. The second step is to show that the defendant has minimum contacts in the state in order to satisfy the due process requirement. Unger v. Publisher Entry Service, Inc., 513 So.2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Osborn v. The University Society, 378 So.2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Two other District Courts of Appeal have held that once the plaintiff has met the requirements of § 48.193, the plaintiff does not have to further allege sufficient minimum contacts in the state to meet constitutional due process. Jones v. Jack Maxton Chevrolet, Inc., 484 So.2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Engineered Storage Systems v. National Partitions & Interiors, Inc., 415 So.2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Our decision in this case is controlled by the prior decision of this court in Jones. The plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to comply with § 48.193. If the defendant challenges the allegations in the complaint the burden shifts to the plaintiff to offer proof of the allegations by affidavit. Jones, 484 So.2d at 46. The defendant challenged the allegations of the complaint and the plaintiff filed affidavits in support of his allegations in compliance with Jones.

The order dismissing the complaint is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings.

WENTWORTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

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

THOMPSON, Judge.

Parthnais (plaintiff) appeals an order dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdic[533]*533tion over Venetian Salami Company (defendant). He contends the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint because it sufficiently alleged the facts necessary to comply with § 48.193, Fla.Stat. so as to obtain personal jurisdiction. We agree and reverse.

The defendant contends that although the statutory requirements for jurisdiction may have been met, constitutional due process requires that a defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts in the state. Defendant argues that once he controverts personal jurisdiction by asserting the lack of minimum contacts, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show by affidavit that the defendant did have sufficient minimum contacts.

There is conflict in the Florida appellate decisions as to whether it is necessary to show the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy the due process rights of the defendant in addition to alleging the statutory requirements to obtain personal jurisdiction. The decisions of two District Courts of Appeal support the view urged by the defendant and hold that meeting the statutory requirements is only the first step. The second step is to show that the defendant has minimum contacts in the state in order to satisfy the due process requirement. Unger v. Publisher Entry Service, Inc., 513 So.2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Osborn v. The University Society, 378 So.2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Two other District Courts of Appeal have held that once the plaintiff has met the requirements of § 48.193, the plaintiff does not have to further allege sufficient minimum contacts in the state to meet constitutional due process. Jones v. Jack Maxton Chevrolet, Inc., 484 So.2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Engineered Storage Systems v. National Partitions & Interiors, Inc., 415 So.2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Our decision in this case is controlled by the prior decision of this court in Jones. The plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to comply with § 48.193. If the defendant challenges the allegations in the complaint the burden shifts to the plaintiff to offer proof of the allegations by affidavit. Jones, 484 So.2d at 46. The defendant challenged the allegations of the complaint and the plaintiff filed affidavits in support of his allegations in compliance with Jones.

The order dismissing the complaint is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings.

WENTWORTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

538 So. 2d 532, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 488, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 791, 1989 WL 12446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parthnais-v-venetian-salami-co-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack