ROBERT GOLD v. LEE ROSEN

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed December 22, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-0375

Lower Tribunal No. 20-12620

________________

Robert Gold,

Appellant,

vs.

Lee Rosen,

Appellee.

An appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice Butchko, Judge.

Crabtree & Auslander, and John G. Crabtree, and Charles M.

Auslander, and Brian C. Tackenberg, for appellant.

Fasano Law Firm, PLLC, and Michael C. Fasano, for appellee.

Before EMAS, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.

MILLER, J.

Appellant, Robert Gold, appeals a non-final order denying his motion to dismiss the lawsuit pending against him in the lower tribunal. The genesis of the underlying complaint concerns a meeting that occurred between Gold and appellee, Lee Rosen, in Bal Harbour, Florida. Observing the trial court properly confined the sole inquiry below to “whether the tort as alleged occurred in Florida, and not whether the alleged tort actually occurred,” the allegations were sufficient to both satisfy the long-arm statute, codified in section 48.193, Florida Statutes (2021), and establish the requisite minimum contacts with Florida to justify the acquisition of in personam jurisdiction over Gold. Walter Lorenz Surgical, Inc. v. Teague, 721 So. 2d 358, 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); see § 48.193(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (“A person . . . thereby submits himself . . . to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for any cause of action arising from any of the following acts: . . . [c]ommitting a tortious act within this state.”); Godfrey v. Neumann, 373 So. 2d 920, 922 (Fla. 1979) (“[B]y committing a tort in Florida a nonresident establishes ‘minimum contacts’ with Florida to justify the acquisition of in personam jurisdiction over him . . . .”); Krilich v. Wolcott, 717 So. 2d 582, 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“The commission of a tort in Florida is sufficient to establish minimum contacts and satisfy federal due process concerns.”). Concluding the remaining

3

issues warrant no further discussion, we affirm the reasoned decision under review.

Affirmed.