Premier Hotel Corp. v. M Group Resorts, S.A.

753 So. 2d 647, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2310, 2000 WL 256182
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 8, 2000
DocketNo. 3D99-1955
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 753 So. 2d 647 (Premier Hotel Corp. v. M Group Resorts, S.A.) 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
Premier Hotel Corp. v. M Group Resorts, S.A., 753 So. 2d 647, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2310, 2000 WL 256182 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Premier Hotel Corporation, doing business as Premier Resorts and Hotels, appeals an order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.

The letterhead of appellant’s corporate president, and business cards of some of its officers, indicate that it has a Miami office as well as offices elsewhere. We therefore view with skepticism appellant’s effort to deny that it has a Miami presence.

The present lawsuit claims breach of contract, and fraudulent inducement to enter into the contract, between the parties. Taking the affidavit of the appellant’s chairman as true, we accept the contention that appellant’s Miami activities were somewhat limited. Nonetheless, the affidavit concedes at least some contact with relation to this commercial transaction at the Miami location, and concedes that appellant’s agent, Premier World Marketing, a Florida corporation, performed some services in Florida on this contract.

The long-arm statute provides personal jurisdiction of “[a]ny person ... who personally or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this subsection ... [648]*648for any cause of action arising from the doing of any of the following acts: (a) ... having an office or agency in this state.” § 48.193(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989).

We conclude that the basis for jurisdiction was sufficiently shown, and that an evidentiary hearing was not required under Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499 (Fla.1989).

Affirmed.

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

Related

Abdo v. Abdo
263 So. 3d 141 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
JOSEPH E. ABDO v. KHALIL ABDO
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018
Conti-Reederei Management GmbH v. Navigator Services, Inc.
752 So. 2d 723 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
753 So. 2d 647, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2310, 2000 WL 256182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/premier-hotel-corp-v-m-group-resorts-sa-fladistctapp-2000.